Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the EEC since 1st January 1973.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the percentage increase in British exports to the

European Community since 1st January 1973.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): The crude trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports fob and imports cif—was running at an annual rate of £2,000 million in the first half of 1974 following a crude deficit of £1,167 million in 1973. Over this 18-month period exports were, on average, 51 per cent. higher than in 1972.

Mr. Marten: Does the Secretary of State recall paragraph 45 of the 1971 White Paper in which the then Government said quite clearly that they were confident that the effect on our balance of trade of entry into the Common Market would be positive and substantial? Has not that prediction turned out to be rather misleading? In the light of the distressing trends shown by the figures, apart from the increase in exports, is there not a danger in concentrating too much trade in one trading area, and would not it be better to go for a wider free trade area?

Mr. Shore: I agree that the judgments on the trading advantage contained in the paragraph of the White Paper quoted by the hon. Gentleman have been shown to be seriously out. As for concentrating on a single trading area, I have taken the view—I have spoken recently to this effect—that we need to remember that


we are world traders and that more than two-thirds of our trade continues to be with countries and continents outside the EEC.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of the figures is a little removed from the dreamy-eyed prophecies of some Common Market zealots before our entry? As we were taken into the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the British people, ought not the British people to be asked before too long to give a final verdict on the matter?

Mr. Shore: There is no doubt that the trading reality of membership is wholly at variance with the confident prospects dangled before this House and the British people only two years ago. I have no doubt that this, among many other matters, will be taken aboard by the British people when they get the opportunity, as they will get it, to decide whether they wish to stay inside the EEC.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Do not the figures suggest that the British people are anxious to buy continental goods, and is not the purpose of the Government's renegotiation to cut off supplies of goods from the EEC—or do they think that renegotiation somehow will expand our exports?

Mr. Shore: It indicates an interest by British consumers and British industry in European goods, but whether we can continue, and for how long, to run a trade deficit with the EEC of the order of £2,000 million is a question which will be and should be exercising us all.

Mr. Tom Ellis: What proportion is this of our total world deficit, and is it in line with our trade with the EEC in comparison with our total world trade?

Mr. Shore: I willingly give my hon. Friend that information. Although the EEC accounts for about one-third of our trade, it has accounted in the past 18 months for more than half our non-oil deficit, and this has happened in a period when commodity prices in the rest of the world have gone up to an extent that we have not known probably in our lifetime.

Air Traffic and Airports

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now

announce the outcome of his Department's inquiry into future air traffic needs and, arising from this, the Government's decisions affecting the development of existing and projected airports.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet completed his review of the Maplin project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: I shall be making a statement shortly about the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the debates in Committee on the Maplin Development Bill it was stated that a great deal of the demand for airports in South-East England was due to the fact that it was cheaper to send package tour passengers from the North of England to the South by motor coach than to fly them direct from their local airports? Will he ascertain whether this is confirmed? If it is found to be correct, will he take it into account in the statement that he is to make?

Mr. Shore: One matter that has to be looked at very carefully in future is the part—I hope the increased part—that regional airports can play in handling our total air traffic.

Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of reaffirming the decision by the previous Government that Luton should be phased out of international airport operations by 1982 as it is thoroughly unsatisfactorily sited?

Mr. Shore: It would be wrong for me to give that assurance at present and it would certainly be wrong for me to make a statement of that or any kind in advance of the statement that I hope to make on Maplin.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he must have given some remit to the inquiry which is now taking place and that included in that remit would be a direction at least to look at the possibility of Luton being phased out?

Mr. Shore: The inquiry has been asked to look at a number of reasonable options, including the option of the retention of Luton.

Concorde

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions he has had with British Airways about the entry of Concorde into service with that airline.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I continue to keep in close touch with British Airways on their plans for Concorde services.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of British Airways that he now wants Concorde "the sooner, the better"? In those circumstances, may I ask whether he has discussed with the Chairman of British Airways the possibility of setting up a joint operation with Air France which would enable Concorde to come into operation many months sooner than is at present expected?

Mr. Davis: I have seen the observations of the Chairman of British Airways. The operation of Concorde as between Air France and British Airways is a matter for their commercial judgment.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the observations of the Chairman of British Airways, will the Minister give an undertaking that further subsidies will not be paid to cover the operation of this aircraft?

Mr. Davis: When British Airways ordered Concorde the previous Government said that they would be prepared to review the board's financial position at the appropriate time in the light of the outcome of the board's operations and that, if necessary, steps would be taken to ensure that the board maintained a sound financial judgment. This Government stand by that undertaking, but I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to discuss its implementation in detail.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend still stand by the figures given in this House on 18th March by the Secretary of State for Industry? If not, which other figures does he stand by?

Mr. Davis: I stand by the figures.

London and Counties Securities Group Ltd.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the investigation

by his Department into the collapse of the London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The inspectors' inquiries are continuing and I have not yet received the report. I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I ought to give my hon. Friend something to tell the investigating team to further its inquiries. Does he recall that the Leader of the Liberal Party, as a director of London and Counties Securities Group Limited, had 10,000 incentive shares for little or nothing? Will his investigating team try to establish whether those shares were sold before the inevitable crash? Will the investigating team also take into account the question of the appearance money that was paid to the right for Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and whether he should be morally bound not merely to resign his directorship but to pay that money back to the distressed shareholders of the London and Counties Securities Group Limited? Will he also ask the investigating team to look into the desperate take-over bid that was launched by the discredited London and Counties Securities Group Limited just before the coalition collapsed to take over this group at a time when it could be argued that that was a criminal offence?

Mr. Davis: The fullest inquiries are being undertaken into the activities of this group. It would be improper for me to interfere at this stage. In any event, I should have thought that it would be wrong to castigate the activities of any one individual at this moment. Moreover, the Leader of the Liberal Party is more in need of sympathy than obloquy at present having taken on free transfer the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister said in the early part of his reply, is it not an abuse of Question Time that a wholly improper attack should be made upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) when the matter is under investigation?

Mr. Speaker: I very much regret personal imputations against right hon. or hon. Members. Whether at this stage I am entitled to stop them altogether is a different matter. It is more a matter of taste and convention than of the rules of order in most cases.

Mr. Skinner: I have had my share and I can stand them.

Directors (Wound-up Companies)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek powers to prevent directors of companies which are compulsorily wound up engaging in the subsequent formation and operation of corporate bodies and partnerships.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It would be unfair to impose an automatic penalty on directors simply because they had been involved in the affairs of a company which had been compulsorily wound up. However, when new legislation comes to be prepared we will consider widening the powers of the courts to disqualify persons from taking part in the management of companies.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in July 1970 my local paper, the Telegraph and Argus, pressed for some kind of company reform following some cenral heating frauds in the area? Is he aware that millions people would welcome firm action by a Labour Government to tighten company legislation and stop firms operating on the fringe of legality?

Mr. Davis: Not being an avid reader of the Telegraph and Argus, I was not aware of its interest in the matter. However, I am aware of the concern which has been expressed throughout the nation about abuses of this kind. It would be unfair to assume that every director who had been involved in a liquidation was necessarily culpable. We must retain a balance. There are quite extensive powers under the 1948 Act to deal with this situation and more extensive powers were envisaged in the Companies Bill which the previous Government were proposing to introduce. We shall certainly look carefully at those provisions and I think that we would wish to implement them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When reviewing company legislation, will the hon. Gentle-

man bear in mind the serious problem of liquidations of financial groups which have taken money from the public and that people, many of them elderly, do not know their rights and cannot get any answer to the situation? This is particularly evident in the National Life Insurance Company Limited affair. Will the Minister consider whether his Department or some other agency might set up an office which could answer telephone inquiries or letters from members of the public who want to know whether they have lost their money and what their rights are?

Mr. Davis: We would have to look carefully at that suggestion. It would not be right for a Government Department to act as a legal adviser. Nevertheless I will take on board the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman and look at it. We would welcome in new legislation wider powers of disclosure which might go to the very heart of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied with that reply.

France

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will pay an official visit to Paris to discuss matters of common interest concerning trade policy.

Mr. Shore: I hope to visit Paris after the holiday period as part of a series of visits to my opposite numbers in other Community capitals.

Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman goes there, will he take with him a list of this country's traditional customers who have been affronted by the refusal of the present Government to supply arms, so that the French, who are willing to do so, can get on with the job and the right hon. Gentleman can then see even more people in this country out of work as a result of the loss of arms orders and the loss of other orders that will follow from these rebuffs to foreign Governments?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman must take on board the counter-possibility that there might be an exchange between Ministers on how far they can agree on limiting arms supplies.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the French Government, in order to keep up the price of meat, have


banned lamb imports into France from Southern Ireland? As that is contrary to all the rules of the EEC, may I ask why, if the French can break these rules whenever it suits them, we cannot act similarly?

Mr. Shore: I am not absolutely certain about the legalities of the French Government's position but I hesitate to say more about this because I think the matter is currently being discussed—with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in attendance—in the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will put the British position with great force.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the highly developed sense of elegance and fashion among the French, may I ask my right hon. Friend to draw their attention to the fine worsted suiting and dress materials which this country is willing to sell them at a very profitable price to ourselves?

Mr. Shore: I guarantee that if and when I have a dialogue with the French Trade Minister I shall draw his attention to the need for this country to export more to France or, in other words, for France to import more from this country than it has been doing in the last two or three years.

Motor Vehicles

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his estimate for imports and exports of motor vehicles in 1974 and 1975; and what proportion exports of motor vehicles are likely to represent United Kingdom total exports in those years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): It is not the practice to venture such estimates. However, in January to May this year 174,000 motor vehicles and chassis were imported and 297,000 were exported, the latter representing 4·3 per cent. by value of total United Kingdom exports.

Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless our export trade in motors cars is kept up this year there will be a serious decline in domestic production, with consequent results on employment? Is he further aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Industry gave a most misleading reply in the House a fortnight ago and published a bullish estimate of production the following week, to which I took great exception?

Mr. Deakins: Questions about production in the motor car industry should rightly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there is scope for further exports in world markets. At the same time we have to bear in mind that world demand is not expanding as rapidly as it has done in recent years, partly because of the oil crisis and partly because of the general economic situation, but we feel that our motor car industry, with its wide range of smaller cars, is well placed to meet this demand.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the needs of our own coach-building industry, with particular reference to public service vehicles? In connection with the export of chassis, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that for a long time coach-builders in this country—and there is one in particular in my constituency—were on short-time working because so many chassis were being exported that the home demand was not being met?

Mr. Deakins: It is of advantage to our balance of payments to export complete vehicles rather than merely the chassis and have the body put on overseas. I take note of my hon. Friend's point and I shall look into it.

Russia and Chile

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the volume of United Kingdom trade in 1973 with Russia and Chile, respectively.

Mr. Shore: Published figures show imports from Russia and Chile as £331 million and £57 million cif respectively and exports £97 million and £17 million fob.

Mr. Dixon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by their postures, the present Government are increasingly identifying themselves with the Communist views held by, for instance, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that there is every indication that


they are anxious to trade with Communist countries and not with other countries which happen not to appeal to their political prejudices?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman, apart from being offensive, is in a sense inaccurate also. The fact of the matter is that our trade with many countries is and always has been decided by the basic consideration of the ability of countries to trade and whether they have the kinds of goods that we need.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever else the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) had to say in his suplementary question, the answer to his comment about myself is that I, unlike some hon. Members, have never been a member of the Communist Party but have always belonged to one party only, and that is the Labour Party?

Mr. Shore: I think that it was a somewhat unworthy remark by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon), and I hope he will withdraw it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As Chile is the main supplier of copper to this country now that Rhodesia has been turned off, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he is taking to safeguard our supplies of copper now that he has quite gratuitously and unnecessarily insulted the Chilean Government?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his information, but the fact is that our trade in copper with Chile is continuing. The limitation on our trade with Chile arises basically from the fact that since 1972 Chile has been in a serious state in regard to her international payments and has been very much a debtor country.

Third London Airport

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any plans for meeting members of the Surrey County Council to discuss the siting of London's third airport.

Mr. Shore: I am well aware of the views of the Surrey County Council. They have been taken into account in the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.

Mr. Grylls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anger of residents in Surrey and other places near Gatwick and Heathrow airports at the possible consequences of the expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick if Maplin is not proceeded with? Will he get on and give us the statement that he promised in writing to give before the recess, and put these people out of their agony?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of the anxieties of and real inconvenience experienced by thousands of people who live near airports, but I repeat my assurance to the House that I still have every intention of making a statement before the recess about the future of Maplin.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government's proposals for Maplin, which were not discussed in a White Paper because one was not issued, included proposals for a new town to service this proposed airport? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a new town would prejudice employment and the social fabric of areas of East London? Will he assure me that the proposal for a new town is not being considered by the Government?

Mr. Shore: I think that the relationship between the new town and Maplin airport is a close one, and a decision on the one would almost certainly be bound up with a decision on the other. As I am not yet in a position to make a statement, I must leave my hon. Friend somewhat unsatisfied.

Dr. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents in Windsor and Maidenhead suffer considerably from the noise of aircraft and are very annoyed at any idea that there should be an increase in movements in and out of London Airport? Rather there should be a decrease, and they look forward to an early decision on Maplin as the third London airport.

Mr. Shore: I fully understand the worries of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others, but even if a decision to go ahead were made there would still inevitably be a substantial build-up of traffic in the existing London airports over at least another decade.

Manchester Airport

Mr. Andrew Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the rôle which he proposes that Ringway Airport should play in the long-term future of civic air traffic in North-West England.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I expect to receive the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority on the Central England Airport Study, which included airports in the North-West, later in the year. In considering the authority's advice I shall take account of the future rôle of Manchester Airport.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a statement only increases public anxiety in the area around Ring-way and in the rest of the North-West that other people may have to suffer from noise pollution? Does he also agree that much more should be done around Ring-way to combat noise pollution?

Mr. Davis: The question of noise pollution at Manchester is primarily a matter for the airport management, which is a local authority responsibility. Various measures, including the restriction on night jet movements during the summer, and day and night noise limits, are in force there. We have had no cause to believe that the Manchester local authority is not carrying out its commitments. The wider matter will have to await the result of consultations which the Civil Aviation Authority is putting in train.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman put a gag on people who are always trying to muck about with the North-West? Is it not nonsense to suggest that the North-West's main airport might be moved from Ringway after fantastic sums of money have been spent on it? We admit that it should not have been built where it is, but now that it is there it is irreplaceable.

Mr. Davis: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is the best person to talk about gags being put on people. He is asking me to prejudge the result of consultations, and I cannot do that.

Exports (Port Delays)

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what evidence his

Department has that goods for export are being delayed at Great Britain's ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: I am aware of complaints from exporters of their goods being held up in ports. In the main these are due to inadequacy of shipping space on certain long sea routes and also to local shortages of containers. The British Overseas Trade Board is in touch with the conferences concerned, which are taking all steps immediately open to them to alleviate the situation.

Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that a firm of sports footwear manufacturers in my constituency was unable to send a consignment to Australia within a reasonable time and that the order was lost? While it is admitted that these goods have been sold on the home market, it is at a cost to our balance of payments.

Mr. Deakins: I take my hon. Friend's point. The major problem arises, at a time of increased international trade, from congestion experienced in some overseas ports, Australia being a notable example.

Mr. Body: Is the hon. Member aware that one port where there is never any delay is Boston and that it could be used more often?

Mr. Deakins: I am sure that the whole House will note that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the appalling delays in most of our public sector ports, will the hon. Gentleman say why he feels that nationalising the ports will help the situation in any way?

Mr. Deakins: The delays have nothing to do with nationalisation or private enterprise. The measures to alleviate the congestion in our ports are twofold. First, discussions are going on with the British Overseas Trade Board and the conferences concerned to try to predict more accurately future levels of demand for shipping. Secondly, there will be a meeting tomorrow of the Economic Development Council for the Movement of Exports, which will discuss the problem in great detail.

Comecon Countries

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what visits he


intends to make to COMECON countriese in the immediate future.

Mr. Shore: I have received invitations to a visit a number of these countries and am looking forward to doing so when my other commitments permit.

Mrs. Short: In view of the disastrous deficit with the Common Market countries, where the reality has not measured up to the rosy propaganda put out before we entered, does my right hon. Friend accept that the COMECON countries constitute a much-neglected part of the world and that if he were to accept some of the invitations and show a little more interest than his predecessor did we might see an improvement in our balance of payments position next year?

Mr. Shore: There has been an encouraging improvement in trade, but more with East European countries than with the Soviet Union itself, where I think our trade has remained stagnant and, considering the size of both the Russian market and our own, extremely small. As for the future, we shall certainly try, but this is a two-way business and unless the Soviet Union builds more external trade into its planning there will inevitably be limitations on what is available. I am glad to say that there are signs that more trade is being built into the Soviet Union's coming five-year plan.

Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in the British horticulture industry about dumped horticultural produce from COMECON countries, notably tomatoes and cucumbers, which in a short time would so depress the British industry that there could be no home-produced tomatoes in two or three years' time?

Mr. Shore: There have been many anxieties in the horticulture industry arising from many trading arrangements and not just from the possibilities of dumping by East European countries. But I shall certainly examine any particular problem about which the hon. Gentleman cares to tell me.

Package Tours

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received since 1st April from

people complaining of cancellation or alteration to pre-booked package tours.

Mr. Deakins: One.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not evident from that reply that, notwithstanding a few well-publicised exceptions, the British holidaymaker continues to get a good deal from the majority of package tour firms in this country? In view of the difficulty through which the travel industry has been passing recently, will the hon. Gentleman encourage the continuing development of the package tour industry as the means whereby many quite ordinary people have been able to go abroad since the end of the war?

Mr. Deakins: I can endorse the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the achievements of the British package tour industry, which has done a great deal to give many people a holiday overseas that they would never have been able to afford otherwise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take my reply that we have had one complaint as any indication of Government complacency, because there are from time to time fringe operators where things can go wrong and it is only right that the Government should be concerned about these matters.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be as well not to be too complacent about the activities of his Department in overseeing the travel industry, as I informed it six weeks before the Court Line disaster that members of the tourist industry themselves were deeply concerned about the numbers of package tours likely to be affected and how holidaymakers would be in grave danger if anything went wrong?

Mr. Deakins: Account was taken of my hon. Friend's advance warning. It was one of the reasons why we were able to react so quickly when the Court Line business came to a head.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman's Department had six weeks' advance notice, why was there not time to consult the industrial advisers?

Mr. Deakins: Until we had spoken to Court Line—

Mr. Heseltine: Six weeks?

Mr. Deakins: We were concerned about the holiday side of the business, not the shipbuilding side. It was only when the firm came to us that we had to take account of the whole of its operations and not merely the holiday part, which is the direct concern of my Department.

Nuclear Plant (Iran)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what advice and assistance was given by his Department to British manufacturers in tendering for the nuclear plant now ordered by Iran from French firms.

Mr. Shore: We have kept in close touch with the Iranian authorities about their plans. These orders were not put out to tender.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that his Department appears to have completely underestimated the industrial potential of Iran, particularly in desalination, and that when the British trade delegation went to Iran five months ago—I think under the previous Government—it discussed everything except reactors? Has not a great opportunity been lost to this country? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to see that such opportunities are not lost in future?

Mr. Shore: I believe that last September the head of the Iran power generation and transmission company was informed about the various types of reactors of which British manufacturers had experience. There was also, I believe, a promise to make available to the Iranians certain studies that the then Government were conducting about our own nuclear reactors. But as the House will know, and as my hon. Friend well knows, we have been reappraising our nuclear policy, and it is only as a result of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy a few days ago that we have been able to announce our conclusions. I hope that this will make it much easier for us to go ahead with possible export orders.

Mr. Tom King: In view of the announcement of substantial orders being placed by Iran with France and the hesitant nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies about what is going on,

may I ask him what he is doing to make sure that we get a fair share of the orders that looked possible under the previous Government and now seem to have disappeared?

Mr. Shore: One of the first and most important things was for the British Government to go firm in choosing a nuclear system. We have done this. I very much hope that we will join with the Canadians as there appears to be a very good possibility of pushing what I am sure will be a good reactor in our export drive.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general agreement on both sides of the House with what his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has said, namely that Iran, a Right-wing Government, represents by any measure a great and growing market for British goods? Is he aware that before the Labour Government took office there was good reason to suppose that a useful proportion of the $4,000 million worth of orders recently placed by the Shah in France would come to this country? Will he also recognise that the two things that have done most damage to our prospects of securing these orders are, first, the actions of the Government in forcing British companies to break their contracts for arms supplies abroad and, secondly, the actions of certain trade unions in preventing goods that have been promised from Britain going abroad?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is simply making propaganda. I have no reason to believe his assertion that the Shah had made up his mind—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I said "there was good reason to suppose".

Mr. Shore: Well, there may have been good reason to suppose. There might have been good reason not to suppose. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a continuing and substantial effort is made by my Department, in association with others, in all the markets of the Middle East.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we left office in 1970 we had the highest surplus this country has ever had, which in three and a half years was transformed into


the highest-ever deficit under the last Government? Will he ignore what the previous administration did and carry on the good work?

Mr. Shore: We certainly have very good reason to believe that during the period of office of the party opposite this country plunged from a substantial surplus into a massive deficit. We shall be doing all in our power to get the country back on the level.

Rolls-Royce (Cancelled Contracts)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet had estimates from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and other companies of the cost of the compensation due to overseas customers as a result of contracts broken on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government; and what proportion of such compensation will be provided by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shore: I have had no such estimates and the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Rost: Is that not a disgracefully unsatisfactory answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any precedent for a British Government forcing the cancellation of a commercial contract between British companies and foreign Governments without offering full compensation both to the foreign Governments and the British companies? What possible benefit can this be to the British export trade? What encouragement can it give to people to place orders with British industry?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has not been properly briefed. The answer to this is that on many occasions Governments have for one reason or another had to introduce export or import licensing, both of which have frequently led to breaches of contract. To the best of my knowledge no Government have ever paid compensation in such cases.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that apart from compensation for overseas customers in the panic winding-up of Rolls-Royce by the last Government there arose the question of compensation being administered on a niggardly level to a number of long-service employees, some of whom were my constituents? Is he further aware

that this makes me suspicious that there was a breach of contract there? If such cases are brought before him will he undertake to look into them with great despatch?

Mr. Shore: I was not aware of that point but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. If he wishes to bring any particular cases to me they will be looked at with care.

Mr. Heseltine: If the Secretary of State has not received any estimates, may I ask what estimates he asked for from Rolls-Royce and what advice has he received from the company about the impact of the Government's decision on its overseas trading posture?

Mr. Shore: That information would be relevant only if it had been the practice and was to be the practice of Governments to pay compensation in such cases. This policy is so generally well understood, not only by the present Government but by all post-war Conservative Governments, that most traders have a force majeure clause in their contracts which protects them against the imposition of import or export controls.

Commonwealth Countries

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for increasing trade with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Deakins: The British Overseas Trade Board is working for increased trade with our major trading partners, including the Commonwealth. I hope that my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Canada and his forthcoming visits to Australia and New Zealand will reinforce the board's efforts. Her Majesty's Government are also seeking improved access for Commonwealth exports as part of our renegotiation of the terms of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that for over 25 years under successive Governments two-way trade with the Commonwealth has decreased by more than half? If he and his right hon. Friends are successful in bringing us out of the Common Market, does he believe that this will have an adverse or favourable effect on Commonwealth trade?


More importantly, does he think that we shall get cheaper food as a consequence of coming out of the Market?

Mr. Deakins: Commonwealth trade has declined since the war in terms of the percentage of total trade although it has gone up in value. One of the reasons why it has declined is that British firms have always, until recently, regarded the Commonwealth as a fairly easy market so that their competitors have gone ahead. Everyone would now agree that trading with any part of the world is not at all easy, as we are finding out in our present period of membership of the EEC. We do not anticipate any adverse effects on the Commonwealth in the event of our withdrawing from the Common Market. I would remind my hon. Friend that withdrawal is not the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] To answer my hon. Friend's last question, the issue is not whether we can buy cheap food from outside the Common Market. It is a question of whether we can buy cheaper food from outside the Common Market. We positively believe that we can and that we shall go on being able to do so.

Mr. Body: Would not our food be very much cheaper now if we were to take off the import levies or the taxes we impose upon so many foodstuffs, including the exorbitant amount of £800 per ton on New Zealand cheese?

Mr. Deakins: These matters are being dealt with as part of our detailed negotiating brief in the renegotiations. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go into details at this stage.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difference between trade with the Commonwealth and trade with the Common Market at present is that Commonwealth trade has given us a favourable balance of trade while Common Market trade has given us an unfavourable balance? Would he further agree that the increasing proportion of our trade with the Common Market is reflected in the enormous deficit we now have on our balance of trade?

Mr. Deakins: I must correct my hon. Friend on the figures. Our true trading deficit with the Commonwealth is currently running at an annual rate of about £800 million. [Interruption.] I am talking

about current figures. That compares with the current deficit with the EEC which is running at an annual rate of £2,000 million.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement in saying on behalf of the Government that the Government do not seek cheap food outside the Common Market but rather that they seek cheaper food. Will he tell the House where in the world, without taking food from those who cannot afford to send it at all, he believes we can obtain cheaper food today?

Mr. Deakins: I can think of several commodities straight away—butter, cheese, beef and New Zealand lamb. If there is no cheaper food available outside the Common Market—assuming for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is right—why is it that the Common Market has to impose import duties and levies to make sure that cheaper food cannot get in?

Arab Countries

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to secure major export orders from Arab countries.

Mr. Deakins: The British Overseas Trade Board is actively engaged in drawing the attention of industry to export opportunities in the Arab world wherever they arise and in implementing trade promotion programmes agreed with industry.

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister explain why the efforts of French Ministers on behalf of French industry seem to be attended with so much more success than the efforts of his right hon. Friend in obtaining export orders from Arab Powers?

Mr. Deakins: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the future of our export effort to Arab countries in the Middle East, if that is what his question is directed to. British firms are engaged in consultations with Arab countries on a number of major projects and we shall continue to give every possible further encouragement as we believe that the Middle East is one of the major areas which can be an effective market for our exports of consumer and capital goods.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In addition to the moves to which the Minister referred on promoting export trade with the Arab countries, will he request his right hon. Friend to attend to the problem of cash for industries in this country which can make the goods for Arab countries but which are desperately short of cash?

Mr. Deakins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions concerning liquidity of companies are basically for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Tebbit: In order to help our exporters, if the hon. Gentleman is too shy to publish a list of Arab countries which are too undemocratic to allow unrestricted trade will he at least go so far as to publish a list of Governments which are sufficiently democratic to allow unrestricted trade?

Mr. Deakins: The issue in this House has not been non-arms trade but has been arms trade. We trade in arms with a number of Arab countries, although at the time of the recent Middle East war we cut off arms supplies to some of those countries. This has nothing at all to do with the democracy or otherwise of the Governments concerned.

Hydrofoils

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade under what circumstances licences are given to Russian-made hydrofoils to operate in British waters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Russian-made hydrofoil which is operating on the Thames. This is a British-owned vessel, registered in the United Kingdom, and has complied with the necessary safety requirements for the issue of a passenger certificate under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that this Russian hydrofoil was sold at approximately half the price of similar hydrofoils which are available in the Russian and Eastern European home market and was sold on credit terms that could not possibly be matched by people in this country? As it is in direct competition with British-made products—for example, the hovercraft—will my hon.

Friend look at the anti-dumping laws involved in this case?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has, of course, written to me about this subject. I am aware of his concern about it. The fact of the matter, however, is that we have received no representations from the hovercraft industry alleging that there has been dumping as regards the Russian hydrofoil. We can act only if representations are made to us. We have to assess the evidence that is presented in order to determine whether there has been a breach of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969.

Tourism

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his Department's policy for the tourist industry.

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals he has to encourage tourism in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: Our policy remains to promote the development of tourism both to and within Great Britain. To that end provision has been made on the Votes of the Departments concerned for expenditure in 1974–75 under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 totalling £22 million.

Mr. Adley: I must first declare an interest in the hotel industry. Is the Minister aware that there is, or perhaps has been until his statement this afternoon, a vacuum in the absence of any definitive policy or statement by his Department on the tourist industry? As he has referred to the Development of Tourism Act, will he now recognise that that Act failed to give sufficient regional incentives in some parts of the country and gave too much incentive in London? Will he, for instance, now consider the proposal that has been put to his Department that tourism development areas as distinct from industrial development areas could be considered?

Mr. Deakins: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to mention that he was, unfortunately, not able to be present, although he tried to be present, for an Adjournment debate on this matter early last Wednesday morning when his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)


raised this subject. I did my best to reply to the debate.
On the second part of the question, I am aware of the arguments for extending assistance under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act more widely than the present policy of confining it to development areas where the need is greatest. I shall certainly bear in mind the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give any undertaking as yet that they can be accepted as decisive.

Sir George Young: Is the Minister satisfied with the present division of responsibility between the British Tourist Authority on the one hand and the national tourist boards on the other hand? Does he see no risk in splitting the functions of marketing and development between the two completely autonomous bodies?

Mr. Deakins: I took the hon. Gentleman's point in the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, and I take it again. There is a problem between marketing and distribution. The two major problems which may require—I do not yet know—some reorganisation are tourism strategy and Exchequer support, and these are problems to which we are bending our minds.

Regional Airports

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy regarding the development of regional airport facilities in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy for the development of regional airports.

Mr. Shore: It is my objective to encourage the greater use of regional airports in general. The Civil Aviation Authority is presently undertaking a series of studies of regional airports and I expect to receive its advice on these later in the year.

Mr. Renton: While that study is being undertaken will the Secretary of State bear in mind the example of France and Germany, where far greater use has been made of regional airports in association with the distribution of industry through-

out the country than has happened in Britain? Will he also bear in mind that if regional airports are not developed and if Maplin is not built, this is likely to lead to a far greater flow of passengers through Gatwick than was envisaged when the South-East strategic plan was prepared? The CAA has forecast a figure as high as 35 million passengers a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this were to materialise it would lead to far greater increases in population, with stresses on housing and education, than the strategic plan allowed for?

Mr. Shore: On all these very large consequences which may flow from a decision one way or the other on the future of Maplin I must resist commenting until I have made the statement about which I have already told the House. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there is undoubtedly a benefit to regions arising from airports. They help industry and industrialists, as we well know. I shall certainly ask my Department to have a look at the experience of other countries, including France, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend realise that rather than concentrating air traffic in the South-East and having a third London airport we should build up airports in the regions? Will he take into account the representations that have been made recently by three Glamorgan authorities about the Rhoose airport in South Wales?

Mr. Shore: I would indeed wish that more of our air journeys both originated and ended at regional airports. There is, however, a problem that there appears to be an unusually heavy weight of air activity, as it were, originating in the South and South-Eastern parts of Britain. That is the heart of the problem. I shall certainly look at the contribution that regional airports, including the airport mentioned by my hon. Friend, can play in the future.

Mr. Allason: As the proposals for the Midlands include two large airports rather than six small ones to obtain greater efficiency, is there not a grave danger in the Birmingham case of creating another environmental disaster on the scale of Cublington? Is it not clear that future


airports should to a large extent be on the coast?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the report that has recently been published on regional airports in central England. The report has been published, but we have not had the views of the Civil Airports Authority upon it and we are far from reaching any general view as to the future strategy for regional airport policy. We will take account of all points, including those the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the recent events in Cyprus.
The House will understand that information about events in Cyprus is still coming in and what I say this afternoon is incomplete.
The National Guard in Cyprus, claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus, has seized power. The presidential palace has been under attack, and it is reported that President Makarios has been killed. If this report proves to be well founded, the whole House will join me in expressing its very deep dismay and regret at the death in such circumstances of the President of a friendly country who was also the senior Commonwealth Head of State.
The Treaty of Guarantee, which was signed by the Greek, Turkish and Cyprus Governments as well as by Her Majesty's Government, provides for the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus. I have drawn the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments to these undertakings and have urged the need for restraint on all sides. I have asked for their urgent views on the situation. I am also in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with other interested Governments.
There have been no reports of injury or loss to British subjects. The airport at Nicosia is closed, and our High Commissioner has advised residents and holi-

day-makers to stay at home until the position is clarified. I am reviewing arrangements for ensuring the safety of the British community and their evacuation should that prove necessary.
I will keep the House informed of future developments.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having come to us at the earliest possible moment with the information he has received. The House will also wish to associate itself with the right hon. Gentleman in his utter condemnation of this brutal and senseless assassination of a Head of State of a Commonwealth country, if this proves to be true. When will people learn that violence in pursuit of political aims does nothing to further social justice?
I join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing the hope that the Greek and Turkish Governments will jointly take action to calm an explosive situation. That, and that alone, would probably have an effect in the island. I hope, too, that the United Nations force will be able to keep order as is necessary there.
The only other point arises on our own bases. From my recollection I would say that the orders given in anticipation of a situation such as this in the island are explicit. If the right hon. Gentleman on further examination should think that anything else has to be added to these orders, no doubt he will say so.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his appeal. This is potentially an explosive situation and very great statesmanship and restraint will need to be shown by both communities in the island if we are to avoid even worse trouble than has already befallen them.
The arrangements for the safety of British citizens and the security of our sovereign base areas are being reviewed. There are clear instructions at present. I have no reason to doubt so far that they will be inadequate.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it certain that Archbishop Makarios is dead? Rumour has it that he is alive and with the United Nations forces.

Mr. Callaghan: I have seen that on the tape, but there is no confirmation of it.


The only reports that we have are—I regret to say—that the Archbishop is likely to be dead.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that everyone will agree with him about the need for restraint? May I express the great dismay and regret of myself and my colleagues at the rumours concerning the Archbishop, a man whom some of us know and who has long played a rôle in Commonwealth affairs?
Under the treaty to which the Secretary of State referred, do we have any responsibility for internal security?

Mr. Callaghan: No, we have no such responsibility. We have a right to consult the other Governments who are signatories of the Treaty of Guarantee. That is what I have set in motion today to ensure that security is maintained in the island and that there is no attack from outside.

Mrs. Jeger: I appreciate that restraint is necessary on this very sad day, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay some attention to Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee which points out that, where common concerted action may not be possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take some action? Surely it is a fact that the setting up of the British sovereign base areas was part and parcel of our agreement to guarantee the integrity of Cyprus under the constitution as then laid down. Will my right hon. Friend bear this very much in mind over the next few hours?

Mr. Callaghan: I have read that article very carefully. As my hon. Friend says, it gives us rights; but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) was asking about obligations. There is a difference. We are in the very early hours of this event. It happened only this morning. A declaration has been put out by those who led the coup saying that foreign policy will not change and that Cyprus will maintain friendly relations with all nations while pursuing a policy of non-alignment as happened in the past. I do not know how much reliance at this stage we should attach to any of the declarations that are forthcoming. I believe that it is the view of the whole House that the integrity, security and independence of Cyprus are vital.

Mr. Amery: May I, as one who worked very closely, both against and later with Archbishop Makarios for some years, take this opportunity of saying that from a bitter opponent of this country he became a great friend and that he was a great Greek patriot who realised that his goal of Enosis should not be rushed at but should be delayed, otherwise his own people and Greece as a whole in their relations with Turkey would have suffered deeply.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, whose name is also commemorated in the documents associated with the final settlement. I hope that what he has said about the relationship between Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, with which I agree, will be borne in mind by those who have responsibility for these affairs on the mainland.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great obligation that is felt by many of those who represent large Greek communities in the House? Does he recognise also that this situation raises one of the important questions in foreign politics throughout the world, namely, the purpose of United Nations troops? Is it not the purpose of United Nations occupancy by troops to prevent a change of government or of Head of State by methods other than those approved by the United Nations?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure what obligations were laid upon the United Nations troops, but my recollection is that they were introduced to ensure that there would be no outbreak of violence between the Turkish and Greek-Cypriot community. As to their possible effectiveness in preventing a bloody coup of the sort that has taken place, my information is that there are 2,400 United Nations troops of various nationalities and that the National Guard alone is over 10,000 strong.

Sir G. Sinclair: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who served in Cyprus when Makarios's aims were contrary to the aims of the British Government had the experience of working with him later to try to establish an independent Cyprus, and it is because the independence of Cyprus is at present called into question by the National Guard's action in trying to achieve a


precipitate Enosis that the danger of serious disagreement, if not worse, between Greece and Turkey, is now only just over the horizon again? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we greatly welcome his call to the Governments of Greece and Turkey to appeal for calm at this stage?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I note what he said. Of course we do not know at the moment whether the actions of the Greek officers and the National Guard were taken of themselves, or were inspired from elsewhere. We must reserve judgment on that for the time being.

Mr. David Watkins: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the policy within Cyprus that appears to have gained most widespread support among the people of Cyprus is that that country should remain independent within the Commonwealth, which in practice has been largely Archbishop Makarios's policy? That being so, in view of the relationship that this country has with Cyprus, will my right hon. Friend and the Government use all possible influence to avoid what now appears to be a possibility of war between Greece and Turkey with Cyprus as the battlefield?

Mr. Callaghan: Of course. That is why I have taken an initiative this morning in all those directions. I was glad to see that in a speech he made this morning, a report of which I have just received, the Turkish Prime Minister indicated, in the words used by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home), that violence of this sort could solve no problems. Talking to a Turkish audience, he made that quite clear in what he said of his feelings about the death of Archbishop Makarios.

Sir Frederic Bennett: As the Foreign Secretary has said, this is a difficult and dangerous situation. I am glad to hear, if I have interpreted what he said correctly, that there is no question of Turkish involvement and that, so far as can be seen, this is purely a matter of one section of the Greeks against another.

Mr. Callaghan: The Greek National Guard has claimed responsibility for the coup.

DOCK WORKERS (EMPLOYMENT)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the statutory regulation of employment of dock workers.
The scope of statutory regulation has scarcely been altered since 1947. Yet since then, but particularly over the past few years, there have been considerable changes in the ports industry, especially in the patterns of trade and shipping and cargo-handling methods. The results of these changes have had a serious effect on industrial relations in an industry historically bedevilled by insecurity of employment. Successive Parliaments have recognised that in the special circumstances of the docks there is a continuing need for control over employment arrangements. We must ensure that the coverage of that control is appropriate to modern conditions.
The safeguards in the present Dock Workers Employment Scheme do not apply at many ports and wharves which have grown significantly in both size and economic importance. So I propose to use powers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946 and to consult the industry in the preparation of a draft of an order to extend the present scheme to cargo-handling activities at those ports and wharves handling third-party traffic not at present covered by the scheme. Any objections to the order will, as the Act requires, be considered by a statutory inquiry.
I also propose to start consultations on possible changes to the statutory definitions of "dock worker" and "dock work" to take account of the introduction of new cargo-handling techniques and other changes in the industry and on new arrangements for resolving disputes about the application of the scheme.
In reaching these decisions, I have had regard to the desirability of bringing the law and practice in this country into conformity with the provisions of the International Labour Convention No. 137 concerning the social repercussions of new methods of cargo-handling in docks.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very depressing


statement? No one can blame the Transport and General Workers' Union for pressing this development, but surely the House and the country could have expected anyone other than the right hon. Gentleman to stand against it. Is it not a fact that the ports to be affected have a very good record of service to both the customers and employees? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory inquiry will be able properly to take into consideration the great contribution that these ports have made? Why, oh why, do we have a statement of this nature at this stage when it can do nothing to help our exports or our imports but is designed purely to please a small section of society not representative of the country as a whole? When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has responsibilities to the nation as well as to a small section of it?

Mr. Foot: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the statement in such a mean spirit. However, I would have thought that the rest of the House would not share that attitude. I am taking into account partly the recommendations of the Aldington-Jones Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that its report was a minority report. In its final report the committee said:
It is wrong that the scheme ports should continue to be exposed to unfair competition on terms and conditions of work from certain ports and wharves outside the scheme. In particular the Committee were at one in deploring the practice of casual employment which is still in evidence.
That was one of the conclusions of the report. That was one of our reasons for proceeding in this way. Another was our desire that this country too should subscribe to the ILO Convention.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the long-term consequence of his action is likely to be the opening up of yet a further range of ports and harbours in this country outside the scheme in order to offer exporters and importers expeditious handling of their goods?

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the assessment of the situation made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). As the statute lays down, the inquiry will

go into these matters and will take them into account. We have taken into account the representations made to us perfectly legitimately by people who have a lot to do with moving goods in and out of the country—the dock workers.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the "bods" who shift the goods in both scheme and non-scheme ports? As they can make a greater contribution to our trade by their shifting of goods than can the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) by his words, will not my right hon. Friend be more concerned with their serious views than with the right hon. Gentleman's synthetic passions?

Mr. Foot: I hope that I have anticipated my hon. Friend's advice on these matters. However, I must say that I expected even the present Opposition to show themselves a little less mean spirited than that.

Mr. Peyton: Despite what he has said, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be considerable regret at this rather retrogressive step towards regimentation? Despite the recent form that he has shown, many of us expected something bettter of him than this constant obsequiousness towards antiquated Arks of the Covenant such as this. Would he again read the report of the National Ports Council on this subject—Mr. Jones is deputy chairman of the council and every view was available to it when it made its report—which says that the non-scheme ports are efficient? Will he bear that in mind and understand that the effect of this announcement will be once again to raise this country's costs?

Mr. Foot: What would raise this country's costs considerably would be to take the risk of having again in the docks the kind of troubles that occurred during the administration of the Tory Party.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in areas where the dock industry is declining his statement will be welcomed by large numbers of people? Does he recall that Lord Aldington, who was associated with Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union, was at one time closely associated with the Tory Party? Might it not be better for the Opposition to take a


more measured view of what is a very difficult problem? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some of the wharves in London there are container depots and stuffing agencies where people are employed and which are therefore taking work from others who might have been in the docks?

Mr. Foot: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. It might have been wiser for the Opposition to have consulted Lord Aldington's report and possibly Lord Aldington himself before making their comments this afternoon.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will the Secretary of State say what representations he received from the dockers in the ports affected by his proposal? Does he not agree that the main pressure for this proposal has come from trade union headquarters in London and not from the "bods" referred to by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who shift the goods in the docks concerned?

Mr. Foot: I entirely repudiate that suggestion. Of course I have seen representatives of the dockers in London, but I have also seen many dockers who put the case to me even more forcibly than did their leaders.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed especially in Scotland where with the development of the North Sea oil industry the non-scheme ports have been cashing in on what is basically a national enterprise. The ports in Scotland, particularly those on the Forth estuary, accepted containerisation without question, with the consequent reduction of many of the registers in those ports. With the expansion of industry and the growth in exports the men found themselves betrayed because the exports were sent through the non-scheme ports. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the inquiry should be speedy and effective?

Mr. Foot: The inquiry will be a proper one, as is laid down in the Act, but that does not mean that this is not a clear declaration of the Government's determination to carry through the extension of the scheme on the basis I have set out. Of course we do not think this proposal solves all the problems of the docks. For that we have to carry

through the much fuller programme of nationalisation, if I may mention that horrific word to Conservative Members, which has been so well understood by those who know the dock problems.

Mr. Fell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has become one of the most senior Cabinet Ministers of a Government which has recently been converted to a policy of asking everybody what they think about anything, will he take a survey of the dock workers at Yarmouth to see what they think about the scheme?

Mr. Foot: Of course, the inquiries have to take place, but that does not alter the intention which the Government have declared.

Mr. Prior: What is the point of the inquiry if the Government have already made up their mind? I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman believed in the sovereignty of Parliament. This is all a waste of time. We have a Government who decree what we have to do.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman talks of the sovereignty of Parliament. He should have listened more carefully to what I said earlier. What I am doing is to proceed upon the basis of the powers given to me by an Act of Parliament, which is a perfectly proper parliamentary proposal. That Act lays down the limits under which consultation shall take place, but it gives a Minister the right to do exactly what I am doing and I am doing it because of representations from the people who do the job.

Mr. Heath: Is the Secretary of State saying that, given the opportunity, the Government will proceed with this policy regardless of any recommendations made by the statutory inquiry? If he is saying that, we should be told so clearly. What is the basis for the Government's policy when it is known perfectly well by all who deal with the industry that the non-scheme ports are efficient, that their industrial relations are good and that they are profitable, in complete contrast to those described by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who said that the proposal would be welcomed by the declining ports, which have bad industrial relations and lack profitability?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have passed his judgment on the matter without knowing anything about it and without any inquiry. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I never intended to do anything as foolish as what he attributed to me in his opening words. We are to carry out an inquiry exactly as laid down in Acts of Parliament, which give a Minister the right to make a general declaration of what he intends to do, subject to the holding of consultations about the details of the scheme thereafter. That does not alter the intention of the Government to proceed with the general extension which we are proposing and which I am empowered to do under Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State is avoiding the real issue. He said the Government are ready to discuss the details of their policy. That is not the purpose of a statutory inquiry. Its purpose is to enable all those concerned with the issues to give their views, and the inquiry may recommend against it. It is a question not just of discussing the details but of discussing the whole policy to be pursued by the Government.
The Secretary of State has reiterated that the Government will go ahead regardless of the recommendations of the inquiry, and that is deplorable.

Mr. Foot: I am acting on the basis of the 1946 Act. I am certainly acting in a much more creditable and supportable way than did the Conservative Government in 1971 over their Industrial Relations Bill when they said that they were going ahead with the principle of the measure whatever the consultations that followed. They had no power in any Act of Parliament to proceed with what they were doing. We are proceeding fully in accordance with powers given to a Minister in an Act of Parliament.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL (DIVISIONS)

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been much public discussion about the circumstances in which a right hon. Member was nodded through a Division on Thursday night. Should not the House have all the facts before it, and would a reference to a Select Committee be appropriate? If not, what can be done to get all the facts?

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had heard that the Government Chief Whip and my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip were to discuss this matter later this afternoon. Unless this House on the whole can gel by these sort of difficulties, it is finished. It is absolutely essential that people should not cheat, and I am not in this context suggesting that anybody—anybody—has cheated over this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] It is absolutely essential that the House should have some sort of agreement in this sort of situation and that an agreement between the Whips and hon. Members as to what may be done in various circumstances shall be absolutely clear. I hope—[Interruption.]—that the discussion that will come about this afternoon will reinforce the authority of the House and the agreement, since hon. Members have to live here together whether they like each other or not.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your endeavour to establish the full facts will you take into account that this practice has carried on for a considerable number of years under successive Governments, and that it would be as well to make clear not only the number of times during those years that people have been nodded through but the persons concerned? Perhaps it would be helpful to establish which Members of the Opposition were Chief Whips at the time that hon. and right hon. Members were nodded through. If we establish all those facts we shall be in a much better position to know precisely what the offence was last week.
Will you take into account, Mr. Speaker, that there is a theory that the Opposition wanted to lose the Divisions


anyway, albeit on your casting vote, because the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was missing on one occasion, and it is suggested that in order to make sure that the Opposition did not win on the second occasion the Tory Chief Whip sent him back to his dinner engagement?

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we can assess the position correctly, will you tell us what Standing Order enables this sort of thing to be done, and what it says?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will, if I may, intervene. This is not really a matter for the Chair at all. As far as the Chair is concerned, if there is a disagreement between the Tellers and that is reported to the Chair, it takes certain action and in the appropriate circumstances orders the Division to be repeated. But these matters now raised really are matters of custom, convention and courtesy and have nothing to do with the Chair. If the House decides to have some inquiry into what happened or what should happen in the future, that is a matter not for the Chair but for the House as a whole. I have no jurisdiction to rule on what is a courtesy or a convention.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand what you have said, but you cannot be unaware of the practice, whether right or not, that many points are raised as points of order for you but with the hope that the Leader of the House might overhear. In the hope that the Leader of the House has been listening to this discussion, can we go back to the simple point raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), without any of the surrounding flummery which has occurred since, and ask him whether he will say something?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have listened to all that has been said. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) are to talk about the matter later this afternoon. I think that we should see how they get on and consider the matter in the light of

their talk. The whole matter is complicated because the Bill has now gone on its way. It is no longer in the possession of this House and it cannot be brought back until it has been dealt with by another place. That complicates the whole situation.
But perhaps I may add that this process has gone on for many years and has worked very amicably. I remember it from my own days as Chief Whip, and I am sure that others remember it too. It went on without checking up or snooping of any kind. There was a genuine mistake the other night.
I think that the simplest way out of the difficulty now would be for the Opposition to put down identical amendments in another place, but that is for them to decide. The two Chief Whips are to discuss the matter and I suggest that we see how they get on. Afterwards, I will consider the matter again.

Mr. Heath: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but perhaps I may revert to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I suppose that I am the senior ex-Whip in the House at the moment. I am a former Chief Whip. As the Leader of the House has said, this system has worked perfectly satisfactorily for a very long time, certainly for the 24 years in which I have been a Member of the House. To my recollection, on no previous occasion on either side has it ever been necessary, by evidence available to the Whips, to question the validity of the "nodding through" procedure. This is the first occasion on which it has happened. I do not think, therefore, that one should criticise the procedure, which I think is acceptable to both sides of the House—indeed, to all parts of the House.
As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Bill is now in another stage in another place, As the responsibility for the misunderstanding rests on the Government side, would it not be right for the two Chief Whips in their consultations today to adopt the procedure I put to the Prime Minister—that the Government should themselves move the amendments in another place so that this House can have an opportunity, when the Bill comes back to us, to settle them? The responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman is wholly accepted; the


responsibility, therefore, for giving this House an opportunity for deciding these questions again rests with the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain how far we can debate this matter now.

Mr. George Cunningham: I apologise for extending the discussion, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing more fundamental to a legislature's affairs than the question of what constitutes the passage of a vote. While fully understanding the circumstances in which it occurred, it seems that what happened is that a vote which should have gone one way, according to the number of valid votes cast, in fact went a different way. As a back bencher who is obliged, having no other friend, to look to you for protection of back benchers' interests, I find it surprising that it should be the case that you feel that you have no rôle in the matter.
As I understand it, the practice of "nodding through"—which, like many other things we do in this place, has no place in the order book of the House and it is high time that we placed it on the order book—is referred to in "Erskine May". Because the House does not have any other order book, I take it that the reference in "Erskine May" to "nodding through" is the procedure of the House.
It is clear that the person being "nodded through" must be within the precincts of the House. Therefore, as I see it, this vote was as invalid as it would have been if there had been a simple arithmetical error. I therefore, simply on that basis, ask that we should severely question whether it is right that you should not be in charge of what is to happen about the vote. What people care to do in another place to fix it up informally is another matter. I ask you not necessarily to respond now but to consider whether it is not right that you should—perhaps tomorrow—make a statement about whether this vote is valid. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I should find it curious if the validity of the vote, and not just what is to happen afterwards, were to be decided between the two Front Benches. Very few back benchers would trust the two Front Benches, especially when they are agree-

ing with each other, to determine the proper procedures of the House.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Speaking as the person who actually is the senior ex-Whip in the House, may I say that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seems to me the most sensible suggestion so far?

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition says that the validity of this process has never been challenged before. That is not true. It is, I am sure, within your recollection that on one occasion many of us believed that the death of one our comrades was caused through this archaic business of bringing people from hospital into the yard of the Palace in order that they can be identified by the Chief Whips for the purpose of "nodding through". This so-called rule has, therefore, been challenged before, and some of us demanded that it should be ended because of the tragedies it has caused in the House.
It is of great concern to many of us. Mr. Speaker, that you should now say that it has nothing to do with you and that it remains a purely private arrangement between the Chief Whips for the purpose of convenience and some arithmetical calculations. May we, as back benchers, appeal to you to intervene and insist that these things should be spelt our very clearly indeed as to the basis and the rules of the procedure? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] There are no rules governing this business of people voting in their absence. Therefore, it is high time that we stopped the utter nonsense of the archaic procedure of, on some occasions, bringing people from hospital when they are seriously ill while allowing some Member to trot off to a dinner engagement and nodding him through as though it were a normal procedure.

Mr. David Steel: Without commenting on the validity of the procedure, which will be considered again, I think that we have to accept that the Bill has now gone to the other place. That being so, it -nay be helpful to the House to know that any noble Friends have every intention of introducing the Liberal amendment in another place so that it might come back `o this House, when we shall have a chance to vote on it again.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the points they have put, which are serious House of Commons points, but I must make it clear that I am the servant of the House, not its master. I cannot say what should happen apart from the Standing Orders. With regard to the Standing Orders, I rule and there it is, but as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, there is nothing in the Standing Orders about this. This practice is a matter of convention, custom and tradition. If the House wants to put something in the Standing Orders about it, it is for the House, not the Speaker, to say so. I cannot order something to be put in the Standing Orders.
This discussion has shown that this is a matter which the House should seriously consider. I think that there should be discussions—perhaps going even wider than the two distinguished Chief Whips—about how it should be handled. There is some point in what the hon. Member has said, but I cannot issue a diktat that something should happen. I am the servant of the House and the House must decide.

Mr. Cunningham: I beg your pardon for intervening again, Mr. Speaker, but may I just put one point? Surely it would not be the case that the Chair would be indifferent as to whether a procedure which is stated in "Erskine May" but not in Standing Orders is obeyed.

Most of our procedures are not in the Standing Orders, but, as I recall, you have frequently ruled on points of procedure, basing yourself upon "Erskine May" as the recorded, authoritative and accepted statement of the rules of the House. May I simply ask you to consider that point further?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider it, but there does not appear to me to be much doubt about it. I would have thought that there was a general opinion that it is not in accordance with the convention that a Member should be nodded through in his absence. I should have thought that that was the general view, judging from the questions which have been put. "Erskine May" states that the convention is that a Member should be nodded through when he is on the premises. There it is—and, of course, I support that convention. But it is for the House to decide whether there are to be new rules or different rules.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That if the Northern Ireland Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Northern Ireland (Money) have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Short.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her interests and prerogative, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill gives effect to the proposals which the Government put forward in the White Paper published on 4th July. In the debate on the White Paper last Tuesday, we discussed at some length the policies which are proposed in the White Paper and the context in which they are put forward. In view of this very full discussion that we have already had on the White Paper, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I turn immediately to the specific provisions of this Bill.
The Bill falls into two parts. First, in Clause 1 and Schedule 1, the Bill provides a more effective machinery for the administration of Northern Ireland in the coming months. The second part of the Bill, contained in Clause 2 and Schedule 2, concerns the setting up of the Constitutional Convention and all that follows from that.
The "direct rule" provisions in the Bill come into effect immediately the Bill becomes law. Clause 1(4) provides that they then remain in force for one year. There is power, however, for the Secretary of State to bring a draft order before the House either terminating the "interim period", as the period of direct rule is known, before the year is up, or extending it by a further period of up to a year. I emphasise that any order to do this is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Schedule 1 to the Bill, which remains in force only so long as the interim period lasts, is intended to meet two specific

problems. The first is that, since the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 29th May, it has in effect been impossible to make new laws for Northern Ireland except by means of a Bill taken through this Parliament. The parliamentary timetable here does not allow sufficient time for all the matters requiring legislation in Northern Ireland to be dealt with by means of a full Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 accordingly provides that Her Majesty may make laws for Northern Ireland by means of Orders in Council.
This procedure is modelled on similar provisions in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, introduced by the previous administration. Like that Act, this Bill provides that such Orders in Council are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In cases of urgency, however, the Bill, like its 1972 predecessor, will allow an Order in Council to be made without prior parliamentary approval, provided it is approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 sitting days after it has been made. Like the 1972 Act, this Bill will therefore provide for full parliamentary control.
Some hon. Members have already expressed a fear that this procedure may not allow sufficient time for Parliament to debate issues thoroughly, and that the House may be inconvenienced by being unable to table amendments to the draft orders. We were conscious of this problem when it existed under the 1972 Act, but it was not easy then to see how the problem could be overcome, and it is not easy now. The Government are, however, actively considering what could helpfully be done to enable Members to have an opportunity of commenting on orders before they are formally laid before the House. Any more formal arrangements would, of course, be a matter for arrangement through the usual channels rather than a matter for legislation.
I should also say that I am moved personally by the fact that I felt strongly about it in opposition. Bearing in mind what care was taken about legislation in the Assembly in Northern Ireland when some hon. and right hon. Members never bothered at all, to the point of not turning up, I hope that, whatever other arguments they put forward, they do not use that one in the hope that it will be supported in the House.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 deals with the functions of government in Northern Ireland. As I have already explained to the House, the present arrangement of appointing junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to be heads of the various Northern Ireland Departments is satisfactory only in the short term, since they are not accountable to Parliament for the decisions and actions they take. Paragraph 2 of the schedule therefore places all power of executive government in Northern Ireland under the control of the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. This seems to the Government to be a far more satisfactory arrangement. Under the new arrangements, junior Ministers will still retain responsibility for individual Northern Ireland Departments, but overall responsibility will rest with the Secretary of State.
We have, however, been careful to draft this part of the Bill, and indeed other parts of the Bill, in such a way as not to bring about any amendment of the Constitution Act. Some provisions will be temporarily set aside during the interim period. Thus, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 there is a provision that no appointment shall be made to the Northern Ireland administration or the Northern Ireland Executive during the interim period, and in paragraph 1 of the same schedule there is a provision that during the interim period the Assembly shall not pass any measures. These provisions are a necessary corollary of the other provisions in those paragraphs, but, as I said, have been so drafted as not to make any permanent change in the Constitution Act.
Those who want to see the end of the Constitution Act must realise that, if that Act dies, so do all of its provisions. In urging the end of the Act they are urging the end of the pledge on Northern Ireland's continued membership of the United Kingdom in Section 1, and the end of the provision in Section 16 under which the grant-in-aid is paid to Northern Ireland.
Turning back to Clause 1, the first two subsections deal with the Assembly. Subsection (2) continues the existing prorogation of the Assembly, and subsection (1) will enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to dissolve the Assembly. We recognise the importance of continuing to have elected representatives who can

speak for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is therefore the Government's intention that the Assembly should not be dissolved until an election has been called for the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitutional Convention is provided for in Clause 2. The Convention is given very simple, but clear, terms of reference. It is created
for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
I would underline the words "throughout the community"; the Convention will not be fulfilling its terms of reference if it proposes a constitution arrangement which commands acceptance in only one section of the community. Moreover, as I am sure the House will agree is right, the terms of reference ask the Convention to consider the form of government which will command the "most" widespread acceptance.
It will, of course, be for the Convention itself to decide on how to arrange its work and how to govern its proceedings. The Convention is its own master, and it is right and proper that the Convention itself, and only the Convention, should decide these matters. The Government will play no part in the deliberations of the Convention, but will, as I have said before, stand ready to give the Convention any assistance they can. There may be some help which the Government can give before the Convention is set up, and, as I announced during the debate last week, we propose to publish in due course some information on procedures, based on examples drawn from historical precedents.
Although Northern Ireland is in the matter of this Convention, as in all other matters, unique, there has been a number of similar Conventions from time to time, and we intend to draw attention to the differing ways in which some of these Conventions have chosen to work—the question of dividing up into committees to conduct the work of the Convention, for instance, the question of voting procedures, the publicity accorded to the Convention's proceedings, the relationship between the Chairman of the Convention and the other members, and the types of assistance which might be made available to a Convention in the way of staff, constitutional experts, and so on.
The House will realise that it is far too soon for me to predict precisely what will be published, but this is the sort of thing we have in mind.
For hon. Members who are already familiar with the content of the Bill, I should stress that the publication of this sort of information is in no way connected with the provisions in paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2. That provision permits me to give directions for regulating the procedure of the Convention and its committees. Paragraph 11(1) gives the Convention itself the power to regulate its own procedure and to override any regulations made by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 11(2) is put in only to avoid the chicken-and-egg situation which would otherwise arise: some provision is clearly necessary to regulate the proceedings of the Convention during its first few meetings while it is deciding for itself what permanent procedures it wishes to adopt.
I now turn to the earlier paragraphs in Schedule 2. These provide for the composition and election of the Convention. The Convention is, as the House will have noticed, modelled very closely on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The number of members is the same, the method of election is the same, and so on. It must be emphasised that it is not a legislative Assembly. It is a Convention for considering a simple but complex question—the future government of the Province.
I had intended at this point in my speech to explain in a little more length the Government's thinking behind these provisions in the Bill, but since amendments have been put down on these points it seems sensible for me to defer my remarks on them until we reach the Committee stage rather than take up the time of the House with unnecessary repetition—although I have noticed that that is not necessarily an English or Welsh failing.
Once the Convention has begun its work, paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 gives it a life of six months. If it completes its report, and the report is laid before Parliament, in a shorter time, the Convention is dissolved then. Alternatively, the Convention may need more than six months to complete its task. In that case, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make an order extending the Conven-

tion's term by up to three months at a time. Such an order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
It is possible also that, even after the Convention has submitted its report, it will be right to ask the Convention to consider some new question which it has not previously looked at, or even to reconsider some issue which it has already examined. In that case, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to recall the Convention at any time within six months of its dissolution. If it is recalled, any report produced by the recalled Convention is sent, like the Convention's original report, to the Secretary of State for laying before Parliament.
Perhaps I could mention here, since I know one or two hon. Members were concerned about it, that it is this sort of possibility that has caused us to use the words "report or reports" in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. We want to make it clear that the Convention can nut in more than one report. It could, for instance, put in interim reports, so long as each report which it submits is a report of the Convention as a whole. These words are not intended to allow individual groups of Convention members to submit their own dissenting reports. The reports which come to Parliament from the Convention must all be reports of the Convention as a whole. There is no bar to the Convention deciding to include in its reports the separate views of any of its members if it wants to. But the reports must be reports of the Convention on conclusions it has reached under its terms of reference.
Clause 2(3) provides a power to hold a referendum on questions arising from the Convention's report, or on other matters concerning the Government of Northern Ireland. We have put this provision in the Bill because we believe it right that we should keep open the possibility of having this further test of opinion in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, it is clearly impossible at this stage to foresee what report will emerge from the Convention, and what will be the situation in Northern Ireland at the time.
We have therefore thought it right not to attempt to be too specific in this Bill about the precise details of the referendum. For instance, without knowledge of the report of the Convention, it will be impossible to decide what questions


should be put in the referendum. On the other hand, it is clearly right that a matter of this importance should remain subject to strict parliamentary control. We have, therefore, provided in Clause 2(5) of the Bill that the Secretary of State may make the necessary detailed provision in an order—but that he may make no order under this provision unless it has first been approved in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we be clear about who is to frame the nature of the questions asked in any potential referendum?

Mr. Rees: The matter of the questions would be under the control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: So my right hon. Friend would do it.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: My right hon. Friend is racing through this part of his speech, and I understand why, but, as I have no amendments down on specific points, will he answer three questions about the Convention?
First, will internees or detainees be allowed to vote, as I believe they were able to do in previous elections? Secondly, will they be allowed to stand as candidates for the Convention? Thirdly, as many of the political organisers, certainly in some of the Loyalist and Republican movements, are incarcerated in Long Kesh, Armagh or Magilligan, will any arrangement be made for them to participate in the elections for the very important Convention? Will they be allowed out on compassionate grounds to participate in the election?

Mr. Rees: I am extremely sympathetic about my hon. Friend's first point concerning voting by internees. However, the question of voting rights does not arise under the Bill. It comes under the Assembly elections Act, which was separated from the original Constitution Act. If internees were allowed to vote under that Act, then it will be possible under this Bill. If they were not allowed to stand as candidates under that Act, amendment would be necessary, not to this Bill, but to that Act. I shall see what powers I shall have in that respect.
On the third point, I should not wish to say that I have done aught else than note what my hon. Friend has said. I shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's first two points. I am convinced that they do not arise on this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with these matters later.
The Government believe that this Bill will enable the whole community in Northern Ireland to make further progress towards peace and prosperity. The Bill makes provision for the better government of Northern Ireland in the immediate future, but the provisions upon which I would lay most stress are those which provide for the creation of the Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland. This is an important step forward, and we have been at pains in this Bill to avoid crabbing or confining the Convention in any way which might impede its work. Indeed, we have striven wherever possible to make the provisions in the Bill flexible. Thus we have been careful to provide for the Convention's life to be extended if this is necessary—or to be recalled after it has submitted its first report.
We have provided for the possibility of a referendum—but have been careful not to impose a requirement that a referendum shall be held if it does not seem desirable at the time. And we have left open the precise issues which might be tested at the referendum.
The Bill is a carefully, and I hope thoughtfully, planned means of implementing the policy announced in the White Paper and approved by this House last week.
I have gone quickly through my comments because, as we had a debate on Northern Ireland last week, I thought it better to allow hon. and right hon. Members to raise matters which could be answered as they were raised. I emphasise the purpose of the Convention, which is
for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.
If the ladies and gentlemen who are elected to the Convention take that as their precept, they will receive a favourable wind when they report back to the House. It is important that whatever comes out of Northern Ireland should command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.


That is what the House wants. Here is a chance for the people of Ulster to talk and work together.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State emphasised twice that we debated this matter in general in some detail last week. Like him, I made quite a long speech then, and I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House to a similar degree this afternoon, particularly as the Secretary of State has just explained the provisions of the Bill on the whole very adequately.
It was generally agreed last week that since the fall of the Executive and the prorogation of the Assembly the arrangements for governing Northern Ireland have not been satisfactory. The Bill contains provisions for rectifying that situation which I think will prove acceptable to the House.
As the Secretary of State said, Clause 2 is the crucial part of the Bill, and subsection (1) is probably the most important part of the clause. I hope that when he winds up the Minister of State will be able to expand a little on what the Secretary of State said about it. The key phrase in subsection (d) is:
likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.
The phrase in paragraph 55 of the White Paper is:
majority and widespread support from its members".
I appreciate that in the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the members of the Convention, while in the Bill the Government are referring to the community as a whole. But I should have thought that the original White Paper phrase would also have been suitable for the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us why the phraseology has been changed and what is the significance of the change. "Majority and widespread support" seems to me to have slightly greater precision that has "the most widespread acceptance". The phrase "most widespread acceptance" seems to be vaguer. The Government in the White Paper seem to be seeking the HCF—the highest common factor—and in the Bill they seem to be seeking the LCM—the lowest common multiple. In the Bill the Government

are not even seeking majority, let alone widespread, support. They are seeking only the "most widespread acceptance". "Acceptance" seems to be much less than "support", and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain this to the House.
The word "provision" in the subsection instead of "provisions" seems odd. The plural is the more normal usage. Is there a misprint, or is there a reason why the singular has been preferred?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Paragraph 50 of the White Paper reads as follows:
to consider what provisions for the government of Northern Ireland would be likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
Those are exactly the words in the Bill.

Mr. Gilmour: I was referring to paragraph 55 of the White Paper, which states:
In the event of the convention producing recommendations which command majority and widespread support from its members".
That seems to be a rather better phrase, which demands rather more than the Government demand in the Bill. "Support" is a better word than "acceptance". There is a slight difference. As the Secretary of State said, the Convention is its own master, and he has properly allowed great flexibility. By leaving the Bill in this state he may actually be increasing the chances of unnecessary argument within the Convention on what is needed. There might be something to be said for laying down more clearly the limits within which the Convention must operate, while making it absolutely clear that within those limits the Convention is entirely free to recommend what it wishes.
I turn briefly to Schedule 2, paragraph 7. Is it intended that the Convention should sit at Stormont? I presume so. Can it or its committees sit in secret? The House will remember that the Philadelphia Convention which produced the American constitution sat throughout behind closed doors. That would not be possible today, but it might be an advantage to have a secret session from time to time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My experience is that even if it were secret the proceedings


would all be in the Belfast Telegraph that evening.

Mr. Gilmour: I agree. That is certainly a possibility that must be taken into account.
The Convention will undoubtedly have a most formidable task. As John Adams, the second President of the United States, said just before the American Convention:
It is much easier to pull down a Government, in such a conjuncture of affairs as we have seen, than to build up, at such a season as the present.
The members of this Convention, unlike the members of the Philadelphia Convention, will have to fight democratic elections to achieve membership. As happens at all elections, unwise things are bound to be said which will make agreement and correct action more difficult later.
The Government have certainly set the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those who are elected to the Convention, an enormously difficult and intractable task, and if they fail the dangers will be very great. We must all profoundly hope that they will not fail and that those dangers do not materialise.

4.38 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Like the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), I do not want to traverse all the ground we covered in the debate on the White Paper. I want to speak primarily about the Bill.
It is worth reminding the House why we are here. The House of Commons endeavoured to impose on the people of Ulster a constitution which was plainly not acceptable to the majority. It is a great pity that all that had to happen before we got where we are now. It would have been possible in April last year to have got where we are now, and that is what we should have done. We should have proceeded from the first election of the Assembly—as I then advised in the House of Commons—to regard the Assembly in a constitution-making way.
In the debate on the White Paper on 9th July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said one thing of great significance of which I will remind the House:

But of one thing I am sure. We want Ulster to remain in the United Kingdom. We have been together a long time to the great mutual advantage of all, and that historic connection should not be severed now. We want to preserve the United Kingdom and we want to preserve Ulster as part of that United Kingdom. I am sure that it is possible to work out arrangements which will achieve that objective.
It is worth reminding the House that that is now the official view of the Conservative and Unionist Opposition. I am entitled to ask the Secretary of State whether the bipartisan policy extends to endorsing what my right hon. Friend said during the debate on the White Paper. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister of State or, indeed, the Secretary of State himself takes exactly the same view—namely, that they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The question of bipartisanship has worked for a couple of years on the basis of respect and, on occasions, of disagreement. It is clear that Labour wants Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom in the terms laid down in the White Paper: it must be on terms which will gain the respect of the rest of the United Kingdom, and not on terms laid down in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: That is a different view. That is not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Captain Orr: Now we are to have a third view.

Mr. Beith: It is incumbent in this situation that the House should have a third view. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pause from healing his breach with the Conservative Party to say whether he thinks that it is for the people of Ireland to decide whether they want to remain in the United Kingdom or be part of some other grouping, and to recognise that the proposals we have discussed so far have been designed to secure that the people of Northern Ireland rather than the rest of the United Kingdom should decide the issue?

Captain Orr: It is the view of any part of the United Kingdom that any other


part of the United Kingdom should remain a part as long as it so wishes. On the other hand, it is a strange constitutional doctrine that any part of the United Kingdom would necessarily have a right to leave it. I wonder what we should say if the Isle of Wight, because of troubles there, suddenly decided by a majority to leave the United Kingdom. What would be the attitude of this House? We shall maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom only if the Parliament of the United Kingdom says plainly, as my right hon. Friend made clear, that it is the intention of the United Kingdom Parliament to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom and that that is the only way we shall proceed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the interpretation given by the Secretary of State today is contrary to the Constitution Act, which says that Northern Ireland cannot leave the United Kingdom except when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland want that to happen? It is nothing to do with this House at all.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I did not pray that provision in aid because I do not believe in that kind of guarantee. It is no use the Secretary of State threatening us that if we attempt to do away with the Constitution Act we shall do away with the pledge. I believe the pledge is worthless. The pledge which the House should give is that the integrity of the United Kingdom should be maintained. I do not believe that declaratory pledges written into Acts of Parliament are of any value whatever.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I should like to know what is the difference between the Constitution Act and what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour).

Captain Orr: The difference is that my right hon. Friend spoke without qualification. He said "We want Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom". The fact that we want Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom should be put on record. I hope to see those words

reiterated in the Conservative election manifesto when it is published.
I turn to the Bill—and incidentally, what I said a little earlier was intended to be an agreeable introduction to my remarks on the Bill itself. We have now reached the situation where we are about to have an election to a constitution-making Convention. In my view that is a sensible step to take, and, whatever differences there may be between the Secretary of State and ourselves, he has taken an extremely wise course in setting up the Convention. However, there are certain defects in what he proposes which could, unless they are carefully handled, frustrate his good intentions.
The first defect is that there is a danger in the Bill as drafted that the whole matter may be allowed to drift into the sand. In other words, if we do not have elections to the Convention fairly soon there is a grave danger of further difficulties. I argued in a debate in this House after the ending of the constitutional stoppage—I do not use the word "strike"—that the election should not be too soon and should not be too late. The situation in which we now find ourselves is that there is a danger of the election coming too late unless and until there is a fair determination to get on with the job.
There are dangers in the organisation of the Convention itself. For example, there are dangers in the appointment of a chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) deployed this argument in the debate on the White Paper. The choice of the chairman for the new Convention is very important. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at the precedents. I do not go to the precedent of the Philadelphia Convention, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. It would be unwise to pray in aid a UDI situation where an illegal body was involved. I prefer to go to the Newfoundland Convention. There a High Court judge was involved. In fact, there were two chairmen on that occasion. The first chairman died; the strain evidently was too much for him. The second chairman had to resign because he was thought to be partial towards confederation with Canada. In other words, the chairmanship of the Newfoundland Convention was not a success.
We must be careful not to fall into the trap outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South. There is difficulty in having somebody who is absolutely impartial and whose background is that of a High Court judge. Such a person will lack the political experience required to steer a political body and preside over its deliberations. It is difficult to find somebody with political experience within a small community in Northern Ireland who at the same time can be impartial. I suggest that the Secretary of State should not necessarily confine himself to a Northern Ireland person for the chairmanship of the Convention. He should not tie himself too tightly on that matter. He should go quite widely and not necessarily exclude himself. It requires a gerat deal of thought. I suggest to him that the question of the chairmanship should be left until the Convention is elected and that very great care should be taken after the election to the Convention to consult those who are elected about the type of person or about the impartiality of the person chosen to take the chair at the Convention.
We have heard all kinds of suggestions. One is that the chairman should actually be elected by the Convention. The Bill says that the chairman shall be appointed by Her Majesty, but I presume that that does not prevent the parties in the Convention from expressing a view about the chairmanship in advance or in giving advice to Her Majesty.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important that issues like this should be discussed. I am interested in the analogy with Newfoundland. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when I wrote the paper on this matter the idea of Newfoundland was not in my mind. This is ex post rather than ex ante. I shall listen round, but consulting in the sense of getting people in the Convention involved and putting forward ideas as to who it should be would lead people in the end to say "That is the man whom such-and-such a group wanted". I thought that it should be very much for the Secretary of State to take this decision.

Captain Orr: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the dangers involved in too formal a form of consultation. However, I recommend that sound-

ings of some sort should be taken. We should be careful in the first instance to get the right chairman for the Convention. If we do not get the right chairman, we shall really run into dangers. We might get a situation where the assembly itself decided that it wished to elect a chairman and that it wished to advise Her Majesty. We might get a situation where a chairman was appointed and the assembly itself as its first act passed a vote of no confidence in him. Anything of that kind would make the chairman's position very difficult.
All that I am saying is that this is a much more difficult problem than perhaps anyone may have realised, and that there should be the greatest amount of consultation behind the scenes and in other ways to ensure that when the person concerned takes the chair for the first time all sections of the community have confidence in his impartiality in the first place and in his wisdom and skill in the second place.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be that the last person who should be appointed is a High Court judge, not least because such appointments bring the High Court into disrepute in that people are appointed who are not trained to preside over a highly political assembly. Nevertheless, does it appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a chairman should be sought not only from outside Northern Ireland but from outside the United Kingdom, remembering that the English, the Scots and the Welsh have not been exactly successful? Might he not come from Canada or the United States, for instance?

Captain Orr: Of course, everything depends on whom Her Majesty appoints. But I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say what he did about the possibility of a High Court judge being appointed. Of course another difficulty, if it is suggested that we look outside the United Kingdom, is that someone like the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will suggest, sotto voce, that we appoint General Amin or someone like that. However, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may well have a point. I hope that no possibility will be excluded in considering the chairmanship, because it is on the chairmanship that so much will rest.
I come to the most vital defect in the whole proposition. We are now proceeding once again to direct rule. In fact, we are in the direct position again. We have already had a year of direct rule. We shall have an indeterminate period of direct rule now. Taking the example of the Newfoundland Convention, that took more than a year. I think that it took two years. In any event, it was a long time. If some degree of pressure had not been brought to bear at the end, it might have been even longer.
It is necessary to move fast to get the Convention set up, and thereafter there ought to be any amount of time for the Convention to conduct all the necessary inquiries, discussions and everything else so that it may come to its decision. We have to envisage the possibility of a year of direct rule and perhaps more. At the end of that time, if the Convention is successful, if it comes to a view and it makes a proposition finally to the Secretary of State, it will be this House of Commons which will have to decide what are to be the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is the House of Commons which will have to deal either with what the Convention puts forward or with the situation if the Convention does not come to any conclusion. In the long run, it is the House of Commons which must decide.
We have a situation where for six months, a year, 18 months or two years this House will be the governing body for Northern Ireland. At the end of that time, it is this House which will make the decisions. It is quite impossible to understand how anyone in this House who is a democrat can possibly defend Northern Ireland's continuing to be under-represented in this House in the face of all that. What possible justification can there be for it? We are part of the United Kingdom. It looks as if we are to remain part of the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. We have invited a constitutional Convention to decide what is to be the nature of our devolution within the United Kingdom. That is really all that the Convention will do. It will say that it wants this or that scheme of devolution but in the long run the reality of the situation is that we are part of the United Kingdom. For the lifetime of all of us here it is pretty plain

that we shall remain part of the United Kingdom. How we can continue to justify our under-representation in the House of Commons, I cannot imagine.
Thus, I say to the Secretary of State that everything that we are doing today, every action that we are taking, the whole of the White Paper, the Bill and everything else will fall and be frustrated unless the House of Commons ensures that Northern Ireland is properly represented.
I have warned the House of Commons before about its mistakes with regard to Ulster. Every time I have been tempted to come here to say "I told you so." I say this most solemnly to the Secretary of State and to the House as a whole: continue to keep Ulster under-represented in this House and you are building up danger.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important to get this right. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about a society where 1,000 people have died and where there has been …70 million-worth of compensation—tragic as it all is—resulting from the views of people who do not want to be in the United Kingdom. I have in mind the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). Although any suggestion of that kind could not be dealt with under the Bill and would require other legislation, what matters in terms of the Bill is that a proposal should command widespread acceptance throughout the community. Is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's assessment of Northern Ireland, given the past five years?

Captain Orr: Most certainly. Here lies the misconception, and that intervention shows it. If there are people within any part of the United Kingdom who do not want to remain part of the United Kingdom, is that to be used as an argument for the rest of the people within that part of the United Kingdom, whose ancestors have been part of the United Kingdom for as long as the United Kingdom has existed and who themselves wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, being under-represented in the House of Commons?
If the right hon. Gentleman carried his argument to logic, he should say "Let us abolish Northern Ireland's representation in the House of Commons and let


Northern Ireland leave the United Kingdom." That is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The logical alternative is that, if we believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland should be represented properly within the United Kingdom. There is no way out of that dichotomy.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Let us assume that it were the case that Northern Ireland had a devolved form of government. I was always told that it was that. Originally the people of Northern Ireland had a Parliament. Whether or not they wanted it is another matter. This is a factor in what the representation at Westminster should be. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for is integration, not finding a devolved form of government.

Captain Orr: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he knows as well as I do that the 1920 Act devolved considerable powers upon Stormont but that those powers were steadily eroded over the years because of the complication of our society, because of the growing influence of the Treasury over the years, till we reached a point after the war where the under-representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, Stormont notwithstanding, was no longer justified. All the fiscal power was here. Northern Ireland's citizens are taxed at exactly the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is no use the Minister of State saying continually "Look at the money that is going there." That is a stupid argument, for I can point in return to the money that goes to North-East England, to Wales, to Cornwall, and to other parts of the United Kingdom. Let me quote Marx to the hon. Gentleman—
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
That is the principle that underlies our taxation system within the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister of State will eventually abandon that nonsensical argument.
Either we are part of the United Kingdom or we are not—it is one or the other. If we are part of the United Kingdom, and pending any decision or recommendation by the Convention for any widespread

form of devolution, there is no argument in favour of keeping us under-represented in this extraordinary way.

Mr. George Lawson: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman read what is called the Kilbrandon Report and, perhaps more important, what is called the Crowther-Hunt Report? In both reports, more especially in the Crowther-Hunt Report, it is argued strongly that if there is to be very substantial devolution in terms of the assuming of many responsibilities within separate areas, there must necessarily be a considerable reduction in representation in the House of Commons. Is not this reasonable?

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the Kilbrandon Report, which said that if there were to be devolution to Scotland or Wales there should be a diminution in representation in the House. Kilbrandon's only recommendation about Northern Ireland was that Northern Ireland is grossly under-represented in the House and that its representation here should be increased. I am happy to have the hon. Gentleman reinforce my view. I hope that if we ever have a Division on the subject of increasing Northern Ireland's representation in the House of Commons he, with the Kilbrandon Report on his shoulder, will march behind us into the Lobby.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is an important subject to be discussed, but can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what part of the Bill could be amended to bring about what he wants?

Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I sought to table an amendment but that he drafted the long title of the Bill so skilfully that it was impossible for me to get an amendment to that effect within order. That is why I am making so much of this on Second Reading. However, he has saved no time by taking that action.
This is a very serious matter. Why have people died in Northern Ireland? Why has there been so much bloodshed, violence and murder? It is because wicked men were allowed to create by force political uncertainty, to thrive on it, and to go on while political uncertainty


lasted. While there is political uncertainty, so long will evil men use violence to try to gain their ends.
One way of getting political certainty about union is to make it plain that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is properly represented in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State seems to find that a curious argument. It happens to be the fundamental argument. Until there is stability of government, backed by the Parliament at Westminster which says "This shall not be overturned. We do not wish to overturn it", for so long will violence feed upon the uncertainty.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with me that the fundamental reason for the killing and the grave differences of opinion in Northern Ireland is that the minority community there has been grossly under-represented in Stormont for the last 50 years and that his new-found desire for proper representation—in fact, over-representationin—this Parliament does not in any way accord with his previous feeling about the under-representation at Stormont which has caused all the slaughter which is now going on?

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minority was represented in Stormont in a perfectly fair and reasonable way. It is untrue to say that it was not. The hon. Gentleman is probably thinking about local government. In any case, nothing that could conceivably have been suffered could justify anything like the loss of human life that has occurred. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is a reason for all the bloodshed and the murder and the bombs that are going off in Manchester, Birmingham and other places, he has another think coming.
There will not be peace, nor a return to order, nor will the Army commitment be reduced, until such time as there is stability. It must be stability based upon the clear will of the majority, with magnanimity to the minority. Without those things, the problems will not be solved, there will not be peace and there will not be order. What we hope to get from the Convention is stability, but we

shall not get that unless Northern Ireland is properly and fairly represented in this House of Commons.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I cannot pretend to welcome the Bill, coming as it does in the wake of the downfall of the Executive, the power-sharing Government and the Sunningdale Agreement which I believe had the support of many people in Northern Ireland who wanted to see justice and a fair Government.
I believe that the introduction of the White Paper and the Bill today represent an abject and total surrender to those forces in Northern Ireland which set about using every endeavour to bring to an end the system of government that we had under the Sunningdale Agreement. That is the way in which this measure is being interpreted in Northern Ireland.
I wish that I could share the optimism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who hopes that the simple but complex task—that in itself is a contradiction—that is to be given to the newly-elected Convention in Northern Ireland will result in a form of government that is acceptable to everyone in Northern Ireland.
I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to co-operate in every way to see whether my right hon. Friend's hopes can be achieved, but I think that one is entitled to refer to the short exchange after Question Time today following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about events in Cyprus. One is not unaware that there are certain parallels to be drawn between Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Both areas have majority and minority politics, and both have majority and minority communities. It is because of the differing aspirations and loyalties of the two communities in Cyprus that one has seen such tribal attitudes and violence, and the same thing can be said for Northern Ireland.
The Bill is being accepted by the so-called Loyalist forces in Northern Ireland because they believe that when the elections take place their supporters will be elected by an overwhelming majority and they will then be in a position to dictate the terms under which they will accept any new political structure in Northern


Ireland. If that is their attitude, I predict that we are in for a series of continuing crises in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said that in the elections that would precede the setting up of the Convention certain things would be said which would be unfavourable to the creation of an atmosphere of confidence in the newly-elected Convention. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to wait for the elections to take place for that to happen. One has only to read the speeches—they were almost bordering on sedition—during the 12th July demonstrations to realise that there will be no confidence in the Convention.
We heard the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) call upon his supporters to join the RUC reserve and the UDR because, he said, the day was coming when they would have to take security into their own hands. That is very near to sedition, and it does not give any member of the minority confidence to join either of those forces, yet that is what we were desperately advocating throughout the lifetime of the Executive to try to create an acceptable security force.
A former Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, speaking on the national radio, expressed his sentiments and called for the creation of a Home Guard of 20,000 men. He said that they would have to build on the victories which they had achieved during the strike which led to the downfall of the Executive.
Such sentiments may be acceptable to Loyalist Members in this House, but they are not acceptable to the one-third of the population in Northern Ireland who have lived their lives under a one-class ascendancy Government, except for a short period of direct rule and five months during the lifetime of the Executive. They now feel that they have lost everything, and they have no confidence in the decisions that may be taken by the Convention.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is rather pleased at what he regards as a change of policy by the Conservative Opposition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted at length what had been said last week

about the Conservative Party wanting Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seeks to divide the Opposition and the Government by saying that my right hon. Friends are trying to place some qualifications upon Ulster's membership of the United Kingdom.
In the absence of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I ask the Conservative Opposition whether they accept the terms and conditions laid down in the White Paper issued by the Government. Do they accept that any future political structure created in Northern Ireland must prove acceptable to this House and to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom?
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South says that his party will have a majority elected to the new Convention by sheer weight of numbers, that those elected will determine what type of assembly or local political institutions they will have, and they will then come to the Westminster Government and say "This is what we have decided by a majority vote in the newly elected Convention, and you will have to accept these terms". Given the history of Northern Ireland, and remembering that there has been a majority trampling over a minority for 50 years, which has led to the death and destruction that we have had to live with during the last five years, I must tell the House that that attitude is not acceptable.
I believe that the Government at Westminster—and who knows which Government may be in office after the next election—must continue with the bipartisan approach that has been adopted so far. This must be done to ensure that the majority party in Northern Ireland does not achieve the insatiable lust for power which its members are beginning to demand, and here again I refer to the speeches that were made on various Orange platforms only last weekend. If one reads those speeches one learns which way the wind is blowing, and if it is allowed to continue to blow in that direction it will bring with it a hurricane of disaster.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South on some points. During its five months in office, the Executive tried to govern in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. Every


elected Member of the Assembly had the opportunity to go to that House at Stormont and ask questions about his constituency or put forward a case on behalf of his constituents. But many Members decided not to attend, and now they are asking for added representation in this House. That again is a contradictory argument.
As the Assembly is prorogued, will it be possible for me to ask Questions in this House about my constituency of Belfast, West and have those Questions answered here, or must the issues that I raise be dealt with on the telephone or by letter? Certain matters cannot be dealt with satisfactorily over the telephone or by letter. Questions that we ask should be answered in this House, because our constituents want to know whether we are acting in their interests. I do not believe that any private or semi-private system will be accepted by our constituents in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this. I understand that the arrangements will be precisely as they were under the previous direct rule, and that we shall be able to ask any Questions.

Mr. Fitt: I sincerely hope so.

Mr. Orme: After the Bill has gone through the House, whilst a period of direct rule remains, hon. Members will be able to ask Questions in this House on any issues affecting their constituents or constituency.

Mr. Fitt: There are a few points which some people may regard as minor but which may become major, as everything is inclined to do in Northern Ireland.
Again, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that whoever is to be appointed as or selected chairman of the Convention must have the support of at least a majority of members there. We in our various political rôles in Northern Ireland could read an announcement in the Press or here in this House that someone has been appointed whom the majority of members of the Convention might find objectionable. My right hon. Friend will have to tread very warily to make certain that he gets an acceptable chairman.
Will the chairman have a deputy, in case he happens to be knocked down by

a bus on his way to the Convention or overtaken by illness? Will he have one deputy or two? The Government cannot just appoint a single individual, because it may not be possible for him to be available at every meeting of the Convention. Much more thought must go into the appointment.

Mr. Orme: As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman will be appointed upon a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. The responsibility for a replacement, if something unfortunately happened to the chairman, would be on the same basis. The Convention may decide that it needs a deputy chairman representative of the Convention. I do not think that it will be difficult for the Convention members to make such a decision.

Mr. Fitt: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend will look into these points, because they are very important.
One other matter has been brought to my mind by the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who says that no matter what happens in this debate, and no matter what the Convention decides, last year's Constitution Act guarantees the constitutional position of Ulster within the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said repeatedly that it is not possible to have Section 1 or Section 2 and dump all the rest of the Act. I have also heard repeatedly, not only from the hon. Member for Antrim, North but from all those associated with him, that the Act is dead. If that is so, every single section goes with it, and the only way in which Northern Ireland can continue to be related to the United Kingdom is by our creating political structures in Northern Ireland which will bring about social justice for all in that part of the United Kingdom and which will have to be rubber-stamped by this Parliament.
I warn my right hon. Friends that there seems to be a mood developing in Northern Ireland, because of the success of the Ulster workers' strike, allied as it was with certain politicians, that they have shown that they can bring the whole country to a complete stop, and that in those circumstances British Governments will be prepared to concede their demands. If that is so, I can only predict a further series of troubles in Northern Ireland.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: It is with some hesitation that I venture to intervene for the first time in some years' experience of Parliament in an Irish debate. My godfather was shot on the steps of his house for his associations with Ireland, and my uncle, who graced the Liberal benches—he was the last all-Ireland Secretary of State—had two detectives attached to him for 20 years after the 1922 treaty. Therefore, I have no illusions about the gravity of the problems we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) censured the White Paper and the Bill as an abject capitulation to violence, referring, as I understood him, to what the Ulster Workers' Council had done to bring down the Sunningdale structure. But that is where we came in, because Sunningdale itself was a capitulation to violence. [Interruption.] I do not disclaim responsibility. My party supported many of the actions which the previous Labour Government took, and we carried them further.
It was the diagnosis of both sides of the House that the way to combat the IRA insurrection was by winning the hearts and minds of the minority community. It must be said that each Government—the Labour Government first, and the Conservative Government afterwards—bent over backwards in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the minority community. There can be arguments about whether they went far enough or too far. Different hon. Members in various parts of the House will take a different view about that. The fact remains that we were totally unsuccessful in winning the hearts and minds of the minority community to a point where the IRA insurrection was brought under control.
There is a danger, which I have noticed in this debate and in the debate on the White Paper, of forgetting that the IRA insurrection was at the beginning of the problems we are discussing. Our discussion is not an abstract attempt to produce a better system of government in Northern Ireland but an attempt to produce a system of government that will enable the insurrection to be defeated. We must face the fact that so far we have totally failed in that respect.
The Conservative Government of which I was a member—I do not disclaim responsibility, although I think that I was at the Ministry of Housing at the time—took important steps, as the Labour Government have done. The Labour Government uprooted and destroyed the B Specials. There was much to be said against the B Specials, although I think that every military man today, and, I suspect, the Minister of State, would wish that we had the B Specials back again. I have had some experience of guerrilla warfare, both as a guerrilla and from the security side, and I have no doubt that only local forces can really help uproot and destroy an enemy who also has his roots in the local community. I am not saying that we should re-create the B Specials, but I would hope that membership of them is not regarded as a bar to anyone's being recruited into any of the security forces.
That was a step taken by a Labour Government. We uprooted Stormont. We destroyed it as completely as the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have now uprooted the Sunning-dale Assembly. It was a big step to take. There was much to be said against Stormont, but it had survived 50 years. It had weathered the depression between the wars, and the Second World War, when Dublin, certainly for the first two years of the war, was not too well disposed to this country in its most dangerous hour. It also survived the aftermath of the war and the severe economic depression that struck Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether it would have been possible to amend or improve Stormont. Instead, we took the drastic step of uprooting it. It is quite easy to destroy institutions, but when we took that step we put in question every other institution that might succeed it. It is very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty together again. We cannot re-create Stormont as it used to be. The Assembly that followed it has been destroyed in the same way, and there is a great danger that, whatever comes next, there will be a feeling in Northern Ireland that pressure or violence could also lead to its destruction.
The purpose of recrimination, as Winston Churchill once said, is to prevent the repetition of error. The only


reason I go back on what I think were probably mistakes—the disbandment of the B Specials and the uprooting of Stormont—is that it is important that we approach the Ulster problem with more humility than we have done. There has been a tendency to say "They are behaving like barbarians over there, not in the way they ought to behave. They ought to do what we say. They ought to have our standards of fair play."
After all the mistakes we have made, it behoves us to walk a little more humbly and to look at the problem not from above, as if we knew we were right, but thinking that perhaps we are not. I could have wished, in some ways, that the Government had not summoned this Convention out of the blue. I could have wished that the question of Ulster devolution could have been considered in the broader context of Kilbrandon, as a progression from the direct rule which exists today in Scotland and Wales. That has not happened. What is important is that we should proceed flexibly, particularly where the parameters which have been laid down are concerned.
I want to speak about two of those parameters, because the third—the acceptability of a decision to this House—goes without saying. It is only if this House acepts what is decided in Belfast that it will become law. That is the only way in which progress can finally be made.
The first of these parameters is power sharing. The difficulties in Ulster between the two communities are fat greater than anything we can conceive of here between even the Left wing of the Labour Party and the Right wing of the Conservatives, or even the Liberals as they still exist. When some of us have advocated a Government of national unity, the Prime Minister has dismissed the idea as a squalid conspiracy. That is all part of the rhetoric of our politics. But to suggest that it is easier for the two communities in Ireland to embark upon a power-sharing coalition than it is for Labour and Conservatives to get together seems a little surprising. Their difficulties are real, because they go to the heart of things. We have to accept that the more emphasis we place on power sharing in this House the less power can be devolved. We have to face the fact that the more we insist upon

power sharing as one of the parameters to which we attach importance the fewer will be the opportunities to devolve powers. It may be that the Convention will reach agreement over a broader scope of powers than seems possible so far. I hope so. We must, however, have this very much in mind. If we insist on power sharing we shall not get very far with devolution.
I am not sure about the merits of devolution—not only for Ulster but for Scotland and Wales. The trend is towards devolution. Whether it is in the best interests of the provinces or the nations concerned, or of the United Kingdom as a whole, seems far from sure. Under our present system the best elements from Scotland and Wales have made their contribution in this House. They have spoken here and worked here and served in Governments here, not only representing Scotland or Wales but, like David Lloyd George or my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home), taking great positions in United Kingdom politics.
With all respect to my hon. Friends from Ulster it seems that under the Stormont system some of the best men stayed in Belfast and did not come to make their contributions here. I am not sure whether big fish and little pools are a good combination. The fish tend to be too big for the pool, and ruffle the water. There is a lot to be said for devolution not going too far.
I was a little disturbed by the exchange between the Secretary of State and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on the question of increased representation. I can see that there was an argument—and might still be one, if Stormont had the powers it used to have—for saying that Ulster was not entitled to full representation here. I do not know what the Convention will decide, but if I am right in saying that if we insist on power sharing devolution will be fairly small, there is a strong case for increased representation. I do not see why the fact that part of the population of Ulster is against the union should be a reason for not increasing representation.
So long as Ulster is part of the union it is here that both those who support


the union and those who oppose it should make their points. Personally, I think there could be worse solutions than a considerable degree of local government devolution, accompanied by increased representation in this House, with an Ulster Committee like the Scottish Grand Committee and with a Secretary of State for the Province who, by convention, would normally be an Ulsterman, with a deputy who might, again by convention, normally come from the minority community. There could be departments in Belfast, just as, with the Scottish Office, housing, agriculture and many other aspects of Scottish national life are administered through the Scottish Office by departments in Edinburgh.
I realise that all this runs us into the problem of the Irish dimension. I wonder whether we are not slightly exaggerating the impact of this dimension. Already the links between the minority community and Dublin ensure that Dublin's interests cannot be overlooked in any devolutionary system which is based on power sharing. If there is any devolution, however slight, the representatives of the minority community will be in a position to ensure that Dublin's interests are not overlooked. Even if there were total integration—and there is not total integration with Scotland or Wales—representatives of the minority community would be elected and would be able to speak up for the Dublin interest. Dublin's voice would be heard and its interests would be protected.
Our relations with the Irish Republic are already very close. It is a unique relationship. I can find no parallel relationship between any other two countries. It extends to free movement of population, economic co-operation and understanding between Governments on almost every subject. This has arisen not only because of the presence of a large Irish community in Britain, not only because of our historic associations, but because Ulster is part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the presence of Ulster in the United Kingdom is the guarantee that the Irish Republic still preserves these special links with Britain which, so far as I can see, exist between no other two countries.
Dublin accepts, as we do, that Ulster's allegiance to the United Kingdom or to the Republic must depend upon the decision of the majority in Ulster. This does not stop Dublin from proclaiming its wish for a united Ireland, and it should not stop us from proclaiming with equal clarity that we want to see Ulster remain in the United Kingdom. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made it clear in the debate on the White Paper that we want to see Ulster remain part of the United Kingdom. He made it clear that we have not forgotten the contribution Ulster made in the war, both in the bases it gave us to fight the Battle of the Atlantic and in the long and honourable roll call of seven field marshals out of nine who came from the Province. It is perfectly fair that we should stake our claim and wish, and that our friends in Dublin should say what they would like in the future. After what has happened, I do not believe that a union of all Ireland is very likely in the foreseeable future. The question is whether there is, in the longer term, a possibility of reconciling the claims and aspirations of Dublin, London and Belfast. I believe that there is, but that it calls for the introduction of a third dimension.
There are the English or British dimension and the Irish dimension. The reconciling factor could be the European dimension. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are both members of the European Economic Community. It is, or was, the ambition—certainly of the previous Conservative Government, and, as I understand it, it is still, subject to satisfactory renegotiation, the objective of the Labour Party, at any rate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that the European Economic Community should evolve, as it must in the longer run if it is to continue at all, into a European political community. Economics and finance cannot be separated from foreign policy in the longer run. One does not have to be a Marxist to accept that proposition. If one day we achieve a European political community, and if the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are both members of that community, then we shall be members of one another.
If that situation should come to pass, I should have thought that the border between the Republic of Ireland and Ulster would be what already to a large extent it is—a purely administrative border. No one knows the time scale ahead of us towards the building of a European political community. At a summit meeting a year or so ago it was laid down that it would take 10 years. It may be done by 1980, or soon afterwards; it may take longer. But I suspect that it will be easier to produce a European political community than to resolve separately the complex of divided loyalties between Dublin and London and inside Ulster.
It is, therefore, to European unity that we should look as the long-term horizon on which the differences between us will be ultimately resolved. Meanwhile, we must get on with the job as best we can, remembering that the more we insist on power sharing the less devolution there will be.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is common form in the House to put forward an excuse for not following the remarks of the previous speaker. On this occasion, however, the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has delivered himself of a very interesting speech. Therefore, I shall excuse myself by saying that I should like to comment on it in some detail, and not reply to it.
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that it behoved us to talk in terms of a good deal of humility. He will forgive me for saying so, but I thought from all his assertions that his speech was far from humble. However, that has happened to all of us. Those of us who have claimed humility in the past, as I have, have gone on to make dogmatic assertions. The same applies to all of us. But I agree that at least we should attempt to start in the spirit of humility.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that somehow or other the two communities were farther apart than were my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether that is true. Some of us have interested ourselves deeply in Ireland over the past 18 months. Although we are told—on

this side of the water it has been accepted into the common mythology of the problem—that the two communities are this far apart, when one goes to Long Kesh, down the Crumlin Road and in the Shankill, what strikes one is how much the so-called two communities have in common. Therefore, as they have common problems, I should like to leave that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with a very severe question mark, as to whether, in all things, the two communities are as far apart as we think they are. I was very struck by the day I spent with the lion. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), in his constituency, to find that there were many aspects of the situation which belied the belief that we should accept without challenge the assertion that the two communities were this far apart.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he disagreed with some of the things that his Government had done but that as Minister of Housing there was very little that he could do about it. Here I have a great deal of sympathy with him, because we know how British Governments, and in particular Cabinets and Cabinet committees, work. We know that there are strong resentments and that there is a code of ethics which makes it very difficult for one Minister, even the most senior of Ministers, to interfere in a colleague's Department. One can see the advantages of not wishing to meddle on minor matters in the business of other Ministers. The memoirs of Hugh Dalton make that very clear. But, on the other hand, I really wonder whether it is good for government in Britain—I am not being personal about it—that the affairs of Ireland should seem to be kept within the orbit of one Department.
I should like to see a system of government on this side of the water, in relation not only to Ireland but to certain other subjects, perhaps including defence, in which it is much more acceptable for Ministers to look into affairs which do not, perhaps, directly concern their Departments and to have a much more realistic view of Cabinet responsibility. If we talk about Cabinet responsibility, we must accept that all members of the Cabinet, on crunch issues, ought to be kept fully informed on matters for which they are nominally responsible, if not in fact responsible.

Mr. Amery: I would not wish to have misled the hon. Gentleman in any way, or to claim that I saw the light at the time or during that period. I made my views known at the time and there was collective discussion within the Government circle. It was not only in one Department that it was done. As I say, I do not disclaim responsibility in any way from what the Government of which I was a member did. I merely say, looking back, that to some extent I sensed it at the time and that I thought that mistakes were being made.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept that, and I pass to the next question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which bothers me deeply. This concerns the way in which Irish people tend to regard themselves, rightly or wrongly, as second-class citizens within a United Kingdom framework. The right hon. Gentleman made the point about Ministers. I should like to go one step further. I think I am right in saying that apart from the last Secretaries of State for Ireland there has been no senior British Minister from Northern Ireland, with the exception, at the turn of the century, of one William Ross, who was a Postmaster-General.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May I interrupt my hon. Friend on a very minor point? I believe that Carson was a member of the War Cabinet from 1916 to 1918.

Mr. Dalyell: Not, I think, in peacetime. The point I want to make—I shall give way on points of fact—is that, as a Scot, I realise that Scotland has been brought into the United Kingdom orbit by having, for instance, in successive Conservative Governments, such senior Ministers as the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home). In the previous Labour Government George Thomson was a member of the Cabinet for a considerable period. This all helped to make the Scots feel that they had a say in the United Kingdom. It was not just a question of having a Scottish Secretary in the Cabinet.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: To complete the record, apart from the example of Lord Londonderry, was not Sir James Craig a Minister in a United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Dalyell: I thought that he was chiefly distinguished as a senior civil servant. Again, I am open to correction.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: He was a Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: To get back to the major point—I have a feeling that the House is granting the major point—there is a strong argument for Northern Ireland's playing a full rôle in the Government of the United Kingdom. Am I wrong in thinking that many people, to put it loosely, think that they are neither fish nor fowl? This is the position that we are in. Therefore, I must confess that I have considerable sympathy for the first amendment on the Notice Paper. Rightly, I understand that we are to discuss the amendments in more detail—

Captain Orr: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my speech, it is probable that that amendment will be out of order. I humbly suggest that if he has an argument to put forward we would like to hear it.

Mr. Dalyell: In that event, I return to the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson). Some of us will have to think very hard if—personally, I do not want it—there should be a Scottish Assembly. If that comes about we shall have to think about the scaling down of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament if we are not to accept the scaling upwards of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. We cannot have it both ways It is rather contemptible to do so.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the proposals that he has in mind, even if Scottish and Welsh representation were scaled down to a United Kingdom level there would still be scope for Northern Ireland representation to be scaled up to the United Kingdom level?

Mr. Dalyell: I think that is true. I would go further, to another point—the attitude of the Catholic community and particularly, if I may presume to speak for them, of the Provisionals.
I hope that the House will forgive me for quoting four or five paragraphs from a letter sent by Mr. John Quigley, the spokesman for the Provisional IRA in Long Kesh, to my hon. Friend the


Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and myself, but it is germane to this issue. Mr. Quigley ends his letter by suggesting that it is important for those for whom he speaks that there should be 25 Members representing Northern Ireland.
If the House will forgive me, I want to go in some detail through this letter. The first point is the very one made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion about the EEC. I do not know whether he likes to be in company with the Provisional IRA, but he is in its company at the moment. Mr. Quigley says:
None of our leading Irish politicians, North or South, seems to appreciate that in future social and economic direction will come not from London, Dublin or Belfast, but from EEC HQ. Brussels, and in the Common Market the people of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, must work as a unit.
This is the Provo view. Mr. Quigley says that this is inevitable and then he turns to the solution. This is not the time or place to discuss the merits or demerits of the Common Market, but it is of some interest that the Provisionals are on the same point as that made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.
Mr. Quigley continues:
I suggest Westminster pass a simple Act of Parliament setting up Northern Ireland as one constituency electing, say 53 Members of Parliament (Stormont) by a system of proportional representation.
Then he tells my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and me:
You will note that under the present system Members are elected on a Catholic/Protestant basis. The trade unions, the farmers unions, the commercial associations are not represented as such. Under the suggested scheme the trade unionist of Belfast could vote for his nominee in Derry or Newry or Portadown. Similarly, the farmer from Antrim could vote with his fellow farmer from Tyrone, Fermanagh or Armagh.
The first election under the proposed scheme might possibly be fought on the old sectarian basis, but the scheme would eventually result in Members of Parliament being elected on a social or economic or cultural basis and would eventually breach the forts of sectarian bigotry. The scheme should be extended to the election of Members for the Westminster Parliament electing, say, 25 Members instead of the present 12.
I do not hold any brief for suggesting this should be the basis of selection. All I am saying to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and to others who

have spoken is that it matters to a certain section of the men of violence that they, too, get what they conceive to be proper representation in this Parliament.
I turn now to the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Frankly, I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking a good deal of truth, because it matters to people, not only of his viewpoint but to others, not in any sense to be second-class citizens but to be genuine members of the United Kingdom, no less than the Welsh, the English and the Scots. I wonder whether—I put this in an interrogative sense of humility—some people in Ulster, not necessarily only Roman Catholics, have in the past said that they want to leave the United Kingdom because they feel that they are not fully fledged members of the United Kingdom.

Captain Orr: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: I will give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.

Captain Orr: No. I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends ought to take seriously, even if it is not in order, the substance of the amendment. We cannot go on like this.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend talks about second-class citizens. Many people in the United Kingdom would say that the representation that comes from Northern Ireland, which was initially backed by devolution and representation at Stormont with a new Assembly and larger measure of devolution, is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: I give way to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The answer is absolutely plain. It was not a larger measure of devolution; it was considerably diminished. Power over internal security was taken away from the Parliament at Stormont. It was simply power to divide the cake without so much Treasury control,


but all the essential powers were reserved to it.

Mr. Dalyell: If this is going on for some time—not my speech—I must insert the view that if the same thing were to happen to Scotland I should be pretty vexed with Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State and possibly Secretaries of State—Ministers of State and Secretaries of State may be different—who came from, say, Ireland. The Scots would kick up a great deal of trouble if Under-Secretaries were to be appointed from among other than Scottish Members. This is a normal gut reaction. Therefore, I get concerned about the time that Westminster will take, because trouble will fester.
Breaking my own inhibition about humility, I should like to ask another question. As a visitor to Belfast I was struck by the fact that this beautiful architectural jewel—Stormont is a very beautiful place—is outside the city. It may be that there are too many ghosts about—I do not know—but I wonder whether, if this Convention is to be successful, it should have its venue at a place which is not only remote from the city but has many other associations. Stormont, by its very setting, strikes some of us as incongruous in relation to the realities of Northern Ireland. I should prefer my right hon. and hon. Friends to have their base not in Stormont Castle but in a more central place, if possible, even if this is sheer symbolism. Is it wise to have the Convention in a place which is not only remote from the city but has so many other remembrances?
I am concerned with the conditions for success of the Convention, and I come to the question of the chairmanship. Here again, I do not wish to tell the Irish what to do. All I know is that I am not sure that I can name a paragon of virtue from Scotland, England or Wales who could act as chairman. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be sensible to look across the water, far across the water, across the Atlantic to find someone who could not conceivably be thought to be acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
What we are looking for is some prestigious American politician. Because he is too old and probably too committed, sagacious old Sam Irvin would not do, but it should be somebody like that, con-

ceivably someone like the former Mayor of New York, Mr. Lindsay, or ex-Congressman Emelio Daddario, or someone else who could be thought to have the genuine interests of Ireland at heart, some American or Canadian not associated with us. I am not sure that anyone who might be thought to be associated with us on this side of the Irish Channel would have all that chance of success. Therefore, I put it seriously that we should think in terms of looking to the possibility—I put it no higher—of having an American or Canadian.

Mr. Peter Rees: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest and with a certain amount of sympathy up to this point. However, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency. He says, and I sympathise with this view, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should himself derive from Ulster. and yet he says that we should look to someone not only outside Ulster but outside the United Kingdom to be chairman of the Convention, a key rôle. Can he reconcile that inconsistency?

Mr. Dalyell: If someone could be found internally who would be acceptable, that might be all right. However, in talking around at a recent conference—and I had better be careful because it was a private conference that some of us attended—I could not find any consensus about who ought to be chairman. Three or four names were mentioned, but as soon as one went to the next man and asked whether a name would be acceptable there was an ejaculation "No, not him; that would be ridiculous". Unless someone can come up with the name of an Ulster man who is acceptable—and I gravely doubt whether such a man exists—we have to go elsewhere.
I agree with my right hon. Friends that the alternative to the Convention is so mind-boggling that we all have to hope that it is a success, even though to do so may be against the better judgment of some in the cold reality of the day after. But it is important to look again at the subject of internment. The other night I voted with my right hon. and hon. Friends because at least they had made a start, but I am sure that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is important. I agree that many internees should


be given the opportunity to participate in the elections if they wish to do so.
There may be a balance of risk, but after what happened at Rathcoone the other night my belief is that this would be far more acceptable to the Protestant community than ever before, and it is worth considering. Let me say in passing that I am glad that the Commissioner—I do not know whether my right hon. Friends had anything to do with it—decided to release yet more internees and, in particular, the internee whose case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), Miss McKee, in the women's gaol at Armagh. I hope that all goes well, and I should like to say publicly to her that I hope that she will not in any way take advantage of what has happened, for she owes it to a great many people—I am not putting it pompously—to behave herself and not to get into trouble. I say to my right hon. Friends "Thank you; you are doing the right thing, but you have to understand that in the context of the situation with which you are dealing it is symbolically important that those in Long Kesh have the opportunity to participate in the election".
This is neither the time nor the place to argue that the British Army has to come out fairly soon—although I still believe it—at short notice, although not necessarily from this point in time. If the Convention is to have some kind of success, my right hon. Friends must try to keep the soldiers off the streets as much as possible. When Britain is seen to be around in a military capacity, any idea that comes from the other side of the water is—I will not say damned—almost damned on that account. How right my right hon. Friend is to say that the Convention must be its own master. We must try to give the impression that in no sense is the Convention our creature. It must be, as I am sure the Minister of State wants, indigenous to Ireland and seen to be so.
I hope that direct rule and the work of the Minister of State and the Undersecretaries will not go on too long, because time is not on our side. One can have nightmares about what might happen if they go on too long. A situation like this is bound to fester, and on that account speed and expedition are an absolute must.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: This debate has unexpectedly proved to be of greater substance and has occasionally ranged wider than some of us expected. I am happy to take part without making the kind of excuse rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Having been on occasions puzzled and on others irritated by his previous interventions and contributions, I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to a speech which many in various parts of the House will agree added greatly to the debate and will set the tone for much of what follows.
It would be unfortunate if we were to reopen too widely issues over which we have gone previously. Whatever we feel about our arriving at this point and whatever we may feel about what has gone before, there seems to be almost total agreement that the Bill is a necessary next step, and even though some feeling was strongly expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who thought that this situation should not have been allowed to arise, the fact remains that the Bill is the only direction in which we can now proceed.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that stability was the key to the situation, but he omitted to recognise, as his hon. Friends have sometimes conspicuously failed to recognise, that stability is a problem for both communities and that there will be no stability in Northern Ireland if the aspirations of each side are not recognised by the other. It is not enough to say that stability will be provided if the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the Union is recognised and seen to be recognised. There are other members of that community who have other aspirations, which are threatened by statements that Northern Ireland will remain for all time, or will in some way be pressured or forced by other parts of the United Kingdom into remaining, within the Union. Stability will be found only when each group feels that the other group is recognising its aspirations.
Most of us are anxious to get on to the spadework of the Committee stage of the Bill. The only point I should like once gain to draw to the attention of the Minister of State is the issue of


under-representation as it arises in the context of the Bill. Although I strongly agree with the general views about under-representation and with the fact that even in the context of the Kilbrandon Report the case is irrefutable for a fair United Kingdom parity of representation for Northern Ireland, I can see the point of the argument that we must wait for the constitutional Convention to see what part of devolution, if any, arises out of it and, therefore, what degree of representation may be appropriate in that context.
But that is not what the right hon, Gentleman has been saying today and in previous debates, and when the question has been put previously the strong impression has been given that that option is not open and that, whatever the constitutional Convention recommends, the representation of Northern Ireland in this House will remain below what it ought to be. At the very least the Minister must make his position clear in the context of the Bill. Does he want to close the option and say that the Convention cannot recommend a system which in any way depends on fair representation at Westminster, or does he not? I can see no argument for closing the option however much the Minister may feel that it is inappropriate to make a change at this juncture. I do not see how those who take the Republican view about Northern Ireland can possibly argue that as long as, and only as long as. the House remains responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland they should not be adequately represented. Having argued on their behalf and in the general interest for proportional representation so that they should be fairly represented—and they are right to claim that they never were fairly represented at Stormont—I cannot agree with them that there would be anything undesirable in the Province being adequately represented at Westminster.
The Minister must make clear in the context of the Bill that this option is not closed and that any settlement proposed by the Convention which might call for adequate representation here, if that were its recommendation, would not be opposed by the Government. That is not something which many of us would find acceptable.

Mr. Orme: It is not possible to discuss this issue within the terms of the Bill. What the Convention discusses is its own affair and its own responsibility, but it is outwith the Bill for the Government to make any amendment to representation at Westminster.

Mr Beith: I recognise that point, and I tried to deal with it earlier in my speech. I appreciate that the Bill cannot deal with the matter. The Government have been at pains to point out the sort of recommendations that are within the Convention's parameters—to use what is now a popular expression—and it is necessary to ask whether within the parameters comes fair representation in this House. I am asking not why this issue was not included in the Bill but whether it is one of the options which the Convention can recommend or whether it is entirely outside what is acceptable to the Government.
With that qualification, and bearing in mind the many issues which can be raised at a later stage, I shall conclude my remarks and indicate general support of myself and my party for the Bill.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall be brief because I understand that it is hoped to pass the Bill through all its stages today.
Both the White Paper and the Bill demonstrate that the man in Whitehall does not know best, and certainly not in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in a helpful and constructive speech which we all enjoyed speaks of people in Northern Ireland feeling themselves to be second-class citizens within the United Kingdom, I remember debate after debate when I felt most keenly the patronising attitude of some hon. Members towards our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland and their problems, and I resented that very much.
The Constitutional Convention, which is the subject of the Bill, would have the opportunity of outlining a regional system of representative government designed by Ulster people for the people of the Province. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian that between the two communities with their different cultures there is a great deal of


common ground, especially when they are confronted with a lot of Englishmen.
The problem of who is to preside over the Convention is a difficult one. I hesitate to propose any names, except to say obliquely that the House probably knows that I was very much opposed to the abolition of the office of Governor of Northern Ireland. For half a century Northern Ireland was administered internally and for the most part had its own Government responsible to its own Parliament. The Stormont system has been built up into a tremendous historical bogy. It was, of course, imperfect, but what parliamentary system is not—including even the one at Westminster? But until the final prorogation of Stormont there was no Protestant backlash, no loyalist private armies stalking the streets and housing estates, and the security forces faced fire on only one front. The imposition of direct rule only served to make the violence worse.
The Executive and the Assembly did good work, and I pay tribute to the devotion of Mr. Brian Faulkner and his colleagues—particularly to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whether those colleagues were Unionist or not. The good work they did, however, has not endured, and now it is for Northern Ireland to find its way back from the wrong turning which was taken, back to self-government. To succeed, new institutions must take account of the predominantly pro-Union sentiment in Northern Ireland, but they must also—and I refer here to Clause 2(1)—give scope to the law-abiding majority of the Roman Catholic minority. In dealing with this problem the majority might remember the words of a great Irishman, once a Member of this House, who said
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom".
I speak of regional self-government. I am an Ulster "home-ruler". I do not entertain the solution of full integration such as is enjoyed—if that is the word, because it is not universally enjoyed by all the people—by Scotland and Wales. Integration, however, is certainly to be preferred either to independence or to absorption into the Republic, both of which solutions, if they are solutions, would imperil the security of the British Isles.
With Kilbrandon in mind, I believe devolution to be a likelier future than integration. We must also bear in mind what the Kilbrandon Report said about the numerical insufficiency of Northern Ireland representation in Parliament. I know that the Minister of State said that this was nothing to do with the Bill, and that it cannot be dealt with in the Bill. However, I see that a new schedule has been added to what passes for the Order Paper—

Mr. Orme: It has not been selected.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Very well. The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke about getting the Army out, by which I suppose he means not out of Northern Ireland but back to its garrison rôle. It is particularly important that, whatever comes out of the Constitutional Convention, the policing of the Province should revert to Ulster hands. The formation in the Republic of a form of Home Guard illustrates the point that against people like the IRA the Ulster Special Constabulary was the sort of force suited to local conditions. For the future, of course, we need not a Protestant force but a people's force.
The White Paper and the Bill represent, I suppose, a diminishing of what the earlier White Paper called the "Irish dimension". Yet the Provisional campaign is also a threat to Dublin, and if the Republic desires to conciliate and co-operate with the North there are actions it can take or from which it can refrain. For example, the Government of the Republic should refrain from litigious harrying of our troops at international tribunals. I regret that the hon. Member for Belfast, West should be mixed up in that. The Government of the Republic should also facilitate further the bringing to justice of fugitive terrorists. They could smoke out the IRA nests on their own territory. There is no border to subversion.
I agree with nearly everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), but I believe that our common membership of the EEC will not necessarily settle problems of this kind. There is no border to subversion. There is a two-way movement of bombs. Partnership against terrorism could further intergovernmental co-operation in other practical matters.


Then again Mr. Cosgrave, following the example of his own father, could place beyond dubiety recognition of the present border with the United Kingdom and, in view of a recent magisterial pronouncement, the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.
If, as a result of Conservative policy, there is at present a certain aloofness between the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Members of this House, it is clear and it is true—it has been brought out by the Conservative shadow spokesman in the previous debate—that Conservatives are also Unionists. We believe in the Union, and it is our faith and desire that the Cross of St. Patrick shall remain in the Union Flag.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: I do not want to take up the time of the House in trying to analyse the White Paper and the Bill. That has been well done by others. We have heard several excellent speeches which have contributed greatly to the debate, and I merely want to deal quickly with one or two points which I feel need emphasis.
First, I believe that a date should be fixed very early for assembly elections. I am saying this not just because I happen to think it but because I believe it to be the wish and the will of the people of Northern Ireland. There is a very strong feeling on the ground that elections should be held very soon in order to clear the air and implement the principles set forth in the White Paper and the Bill. I emphasise that fact, and I appeal to the Government to take steps to bring about early elections to the constituent assembly in the North of Ireland.
More adequate arrangements should be made for by-elections in the Bill and in any forthcoming legislation. The situation in which the Antrim, North constituency was left unrepresented in the Assembly for nearly a year following the death of the Member shortly after his election in June 1973 was ridiculous. It was caused because of the reluctance or the inability of the Government to institute a by-election in Antrim, North. More definite and adequate provision should be made for by-elections in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: In this measure we are not making any provision for by-elections because the Government do not believe that the constitutional assembly will be on all fours with the previous Assembly, which was, in effect, a parliament. The new Convention will be there to do one job only—to arrive at recommendations. It will not be a representative parliament.

Mr. Dunlop: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says but I am referring to the last Assembly, which was a constituent Assembly. There was under-representation in that Assembly for almost a year.

Mr. Orme: I accept that.

Mr. Dunlop: In any future arrangements for a constituent assembly, more definite procedures for by-elections should be included.
The words "patience", "forbearance" and "humility" have been used in the debate. I do not know whether there will be much humility in what I have to say or much forbearance from the House in response. I am a junior Member of the House. I use the word "junior" advisedly in that I have not been long associated with the House as a politician. I use it not on account of age but in point of experience in the House. As a junior Member, I have been greatly intrigued by the oft-repeated words "power sharing" and "Irish dimension".
I was rather shocked by the Leader of the Opposition when we were debating the White Paper. Even after his own nominated Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had, as we thought, presented the mind and will of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in an emotional outburst, said that there must be power sharing and an Irish dimension.
What about this Irish dimension? Why this positive insistence upon it at all times? The Republic of Ireland long ago declared itself an independent Irish Republic outside the British Commonwealth. It severed all connection with the British Crown and constitution. It introduced its own constitution and coinage—a nuisance to us in Northern Ireland. In every way the Republic of Ireland cut itself off from everything British. Yet


there seems to be an overwhelming urge on both sides of this House and among many people outside that the Government of the Republic must be involved in the government of Northern Ireland and have a say in many aspects of it. I would like to know why.
This very Government of the Republic of Ireland are engaged in indicting the British Government, the British Army and, indeed, the British people on charges of cruelty and torture before an international court, and, despite his rather emotional outburst, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is one of the witnesses at that trial. He will be testifying against the British Government and the British Parliament. It makes me a wee bit tired when some of those people who want to serve Northern Ireland within the context of British authority engage in such actions outside the House of Commons.
There is great talk about the boundary, which seems to be so significant, with Southern Ireland, and about why it should be so much taken into account. But Ulster is not the only place in the world with a land boundary with another country. Switzerland is surrounded by other countries, but there is no clamour inside Switzerland for another country to have a share in its government. Yet that seems to be the case with the boundary between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. After all, it has been reiterated time and time again in the House that these six north-eastern counties of the United Kingdom in the island of Ireland are British, that they belong to the British people, that they belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why should any foreign Government be involved in their administration?
The White Paper and the Bill mention the UDR, the RUC and the RUC Reserve. I want to serve my country to the best of my ability. I have offered for service in the UDR and been turned down; I have offered for service in the Northern Ireland Police Reserve and been turned down. I have not been given very adequate reasons why. I want to serve my country, and I, along with some other public-spirited members of my little community, am engaged in a vigilante force in Moneymore and in County Londonderry. We work at night as an un-

authorised, unarmed and unhonoured group of people. We go out in rotation to patrol the streets of that little town to ensure that no unauthorised or belligerent people come in and that we can give the security authorities adequate notice of any such invasion.
But this only highlights our demand for a third force, a genuine Home Guard which people like myself, who, perhaps because of age or general unfitness, cannot get into the regular forces, could join and thereby offer some defence against the depredations of the Irish Republican Army, with which all the people in the North are just about fed up. We do not want to face another winter of actions by the IRA without some local defence so that we can defend our homes and the districts with which we are familiar.
I can understand the difficulties of the British Army, especially the new units, in trying to do police work, which should be done by local people. I was stopped one day by a young British lieutenant in Cookstown, which is only five miles away. He asked my name. I gave it and said that I came from Moneymore, County Londonderry. He asked "Are you a resident of Cookstown?" That shows that he did not know much about the local geography. I do not blame that young man, but the lack of local knowledge is a serious handicap when the Army is trying to carry out police duties. That is not its job. There should be some provision for a Home Guard to defend our homes and districts. We know not only the geography but where the people live and what they do. I appeal to the Government on these relevant points.
I felt sorry for the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who voiced a strong note of pessimism. He seemed to be anticipating not only the make-up of the Constitutional Convention but its conclusions, and struck a hopeless note about how it would end and what the situation in Northern Ireland would then be. I do not take that view. If we can have early elections and bring the people of Northern Ireland together to talk among themselves, as the Secretary of State told us, with no interference from London or Dublin, we shall be able to resolve our problems and evolve a scheme to govern the Province to the satisfaction and with


the blessing of all its people and to its peace and prosperity.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The key subsections of the Bill are Clause 2(1) and (2). It is my general view that they are nearly meaningless. Subsection (1) says that the Convention will consider
…what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.
The term "provision" has not been closely defined, and it is not known what the powers to determine the provision will be.
If, for example, acting under precedents, the Convention recommended straightforward "one man, one vote" constituency elections to a local parliament, that would be a provision, but it has been shown that it is unlikely to be an acceptable one. The Government have, therefore, charged the Convention to do something while at the same time they have set down strict parameters.
What is meant by the phrase "what provision"? The only answer is one which is
…likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community".
In most democracies, the test of widespread acceptance has been the ballot box, which has a long history of excellence as a means of testing the acceptability of a set of proposals or an individual programme. What we do not know under subsection (1) is how "widespread acceptance" will be assessed. Will it be done by counting heads, the normal democratic process, or by some subtle sliding scale'? Would it be proposed to lose a few at one end in the hope of gaining a few more at the other? Does one move towards some grand coalition by dropping the left wing of the Labour Party and the extreme right of the Tories, in the certainty that eveyone else would have widespread acceptance?
If that is what we think we are asking the Convention to do, we delude ourselves beyond measure. There is but one issue that will come before the Convention, and that is the issue of the separate and continued existence of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Until that is clear, no provision for the future govern-

ment of Northern Ireland is likely to command widespread acceptance. If that is doubted at any point, "widespread acceptance" ceases to be a possibility. We may as well accept that before we pass the Bill and ask the Convention to do the impossible.
There are times when what is euphemistically called "power sharing" looks appallingly like unimpeded progress towards minority rule. There have been times when we on this side fought hard to ensure that there should be no independence for Rhodesia before majority rule. We are now fighting equally hard to pass a Bill which will provide that there will be no independence in Ulster with majority rule. If that is what we want, my right hon. and hon. Friends are capable of achieving it, but let us be clear what Clause 2(1) will do.
We are asking the Convention to make provisions, or, later recommendations, and at the same time are telling it that that which we wanted for Southern Rhodesia and other parts of the world which were our colonies we will not allow for a part of our own United Kingdom. That is a curious constitutional doctrine. However bad the history of parts of local government in Northern Ireland under Stormont, however appalling the levels of discrimination against which the civil rights movement fought in the late 1960s, I see no reason why this House, the Mother of Parliaments, should be called upon in one day to shuffle through a Bill containing this underlying defeatism about the whole democratic process of "one man, one vote".
Subsection (2) says:
The Convention shall transmit to the Secretary of State a report or reports".
My right hon. Friend clarified his intentions to some extent today, saying that it was intended that the Convention should submit an interim report first and that then, if further questions arose on a different area of provisions, there could be a second report. But he then, as I understand it, suggested that in such reports it would be proper for the Convention to submit details of conflicting views expressed within it, even though the report was a report from the Convention as a whole.
The one thing which I greatly fear is that this House, in which the Ulster


people are not over-represented, may be called upon to adjudicate on the reports of the Convention and to act as a court of adjudication for the Convention so that if there is a difference of opinion in the Convention the matter will be fed back to this House for a decision. I have grave doubts about whether this House is competent, except in the most strict constitutional sense, to perform such an act. No doubt constitutionally we must have that responsibility, but I question whether we have the technical competence on any other level.
I welcome paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 dealing with the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints in Northern Ireland. As a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner during the previous period of direct rule, I should like to know whether there is provision for the Convention's reports to be submitted to that Select Committee.
May I once more ask that it should be made clearer how the Constitutional Convention is in reality to determine the phrase "widespread acceptance" when it is firmly indicated to it that it can accept only the British or Irish dimension and occasionally is not allowed to accept the Ulster dimension?

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The reminder of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) that majorities also have their rights is timely and will be helpful to our debates.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that perhaps someone from outside the United Kingdom or Ireland might be a suitable chairman of the Convention, and he mentioned a couple of names from North America. While the idea is an original one and there may be such people to be found, may I express the hope that the Secretary of State will not accept the two gentlemen to whom the hon. Member referred because, to my certain knowledge, neither of them is uncommitted in the Irish matter and would be disastrous if chosen.
One trouble about discussing Northern Ireland is that phrases which are innocently descriptive in themselves acquire special meanings because of events which have taken place, and sometimes different meanings to different people. For example, "the Irish dimension", what-

ever it may have meant once, now means, in the view of many people, a gradual slide towards a united Ireland, and to harp upon this phrase evokes memories of Sunningdale. To insist on using it makes those who regard it with anxiety believe that we are trying to resurrect Sunningdale.
Similarly, the phrase "power sharing" seems to mean that both sides of opinion should have a say. No one could quarrel with that. But as things have turned out it also means to a large number of people that the minority should have a permanent veto. To give a permanent veto to a minority is a drastic step for a majority to take and, I should think, as a matter of practice cannot possibly be imposed from outside. The vice of Sunningdale was that it sought to impose, after what was thought to be inadequate consultation, a solution which the majority could accept, and that is why Sunningdale died.
It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, that as each constitution falls it becomes more difficult to set up the next. However, I welcome the Convention in principle as it holds out some hope that a voluntary agreement about power sharing can be reached. There are many examples in the world where power sharing is systematised and made precise. A small country, about the same size as Northern Ireland, in which it works is the Lebanon, where the different Governments posts are strictly divided by traditions between the two religions and inside the religions. Therefore, everybody knows that the president must always be of one religion and the vice-president of another religion. The system is observed, and the Lebanon, which does not have every advantage in the world, manages to keep going in a way which gives satisfaction to its citizens.
But power sharing is a very delicate operation, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government appear not to be insisting too strongly on a particular course of action for the Convention. To do so would diminish the value which the Convention might have in the eyes of those who take part in it.
That is not to say that this House and the Government have no responsibilities in the Convention and its decisions, for several important reasons. First, Ulster


is part of the United Kingdom, and I very much hope will remain so. It is just as much part of the United Kingdom as is Wales or England, and that is a matter of sentiment and patriotism. I was sorry that the Prime Minister, in a moment of anger, I suppose, or perhaps anxiety with his many duties, should have referred to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland as spongers. In my view, they are no more that than the people in the development areas of Cornwall, Wales or Salford.
Secondly, it is important that we in this House should have a say in these matters because the integrity of the territory of the United Kingdom is of prime United Kingdom interest it is important for the strength and defence of the country. From the defence point of view, we need the bases and garrisons which exist there in normal times. Now, negatively speaking, we do not wish so large a proportion of our troops to be involved in Northern Ireland. Unless we can extract them in due course, our interests are very much at risk. Therefore, if the Constitutional Convention can agree and thus reduce the tension, it will be desirable from the point of view of the defence of the United Kingdom.
It has been observed, and it is perhaps a truism, that guerrillas are much more easily dealt with by local people with local knowledge than by visiting troops. The Regular Army is much better used to guard the frontier and the integrity of the national territory than to undertake police duties such as those it is performing now. I therefore hope that the Government will not neglect any step which they can take to increase security before we have to make further constitutional decisions—whether by increasing the local defence forces, whether by taking further steps for the security of the border, or whether by issuing identity cards, if that is useful.
Psychologically speaking, it is desirable that the convention should assemble with a firm background and that there should be an end to the constitutional uncertainty. One way in which that could be done would be to say that Ulster is regarded as part of the United Kingdom, as in fact it is, and that there should be no more ifs and buts and no more talk of periodic reviews or border polls. Those

are nothing less than an invitation to extremists to go on trying to get their will by force.
In pursuance of this air of certainty, I go along with the proposition that Ulster should be properly represented in this House, perhaps not immediately, because we have the Convention to consider, but it would be intolerable if Ulster alone were not to be properly and decently represented here. If the Secretary of State gave assurances on these lines, the Convention could feel that it was building not upon sands which might shift at any moment but on solid foundations for the citizens of Northern Ireland and their children.
I have not spoken of the long term. Many long-term solutions have been offered in the past, but each has vanished as a mirage. Let us see what the Convention brings. After the long confrontation over the past few years, each side in the conflict may now have a more precise idea of the strength of the other. It may be that both sides will realise that neither can have absolute victory, and in those circumstances they may make a success of the Convention—the success which has eluded us during the past 10 years. It is indeed a daunting task, and I hope that the House will give a message of good will to the Convention and of hope that it will succeed in its task.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: However much good will there may be for the Convention—and there is a good deal on both sides of the House—it is right that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) should strike a note of scepticism, which will be shared by all those who have examined this seemingly intractable Northern Ireland problem. If the Convention, with the majority that will inevitably be thrown up within it, is to come forward with the kind of proposals which I suspect are looked for by the Secretary of State, only if the most careful guidance is given to it all the way through its deliberations will it produce a solution which is acceptable to the House.
The Convention will require time, and for that reason I want to refer briefly, though in slightly different terms, to what has been urged on the House this afternoon by many speakers. The Bill is not


a vehicle by which we can change the representation of Northern Ireland, but. it should be considered within the terms of whether that representation is or is not to be changed. Both parties in their day have rejected any change in the present representation, and I understand the Labour Party's concern that there might be such a change; but what is proposed?
The proposal is not for integration. All one can ask is what Kilbrandon thought was fair on the basis that there was a devolved assembly, and that would probably take the figure up to 18 or 19. Full representation in the House would take the figure into the twenties.
What would happen if we changed the representation here? It is often thought that the Opposition benches would be reinforced, but nothing could be further from the truth. If the representation from Northern Ireland were increased to 18, inevitably west of the Bann there would be smaller constituencies, but all the best electoral studies show that the balance would not be greatly different from that which pertains today. There would be more Members from west of the Bann and there would naturally be more from Ulster and Down, but on balance the difference would probably be only a seat or so in party terms.
It would be of great advantage if there were a more diverse representation. I suspect that I should take with me several hon. Gentlemen who represent very different interests in suggesting that in return for greater representation for Northern Ireland it would be nothing but an advantage to the House to have three or four SDLP members.

Captain Orr: My hon. and learned Friend would no doubt concede that it might be a great advantage to the House to have a member from the Northern Ireland Labour Party?

Mr. Miscampbell: Certainly, if it were possible, it would undoubtedly be an advantage. I leave that aspect with this one observation. It would not be an obvious disadvantage or disaster to one party or the other for the representation to be changed. There is not much to be gained or lost one way or the other in internal British terms.
There are other advantages. It has been said that in the end the House will have to decide whether it accepts or rejects what is produced by the Convention. It is right that those who will have the advantage or disadvantage of that new constitution should have at least reasonable representation in saying "yea" or "nay" to it.
There are two reasons for considering changed representation. I do not believe that the Convention is likely to produce an acceptable solution in the short run. It may be impossible to produce an acceptable solution—I do not know. In any case, it will take time, and if it takes a year rather than months it is wrong that there should not be representation here.
The last and most powerful reason is that if in the end there is to be some form of power sharing—I would rather say shared responsibility—in Northern Ireland, the only way in which that can come about is by growth from a small beginning, so that when it is seen to work more and more powers are taken. One recipe for disaster is to place upon the assembly full responsibilities for matters which are highly controversial. If there is shared responsibility it will be difficult for the assembly to stick together.
Some local councils in Northern Ireland work well with a degree of power sharing. That is not just because of good will but because, unfortunately, local councils have had so much responsibility taken away from them that they can easily decide who should or should not empty the dustbin. If the assembly which we hope will come from this Convention is to succeed it must grow from reasonably modest beginnings. If we take that view, we cannot at the same time say that there will be modest beginnings in Belfast and modest representation here. If we were to say to the North of Ireland "So far as the imperial Parliament is concerned, you will go to the standard which Kilbrandon thought reasonable, and after that we shall start slowly in the North of Ireland to build an assembly with shared responsibilities", that would seem to be a hypothetical approach. Bearing in mind how little change it would make here, I would regard it as wrong for that to be ruled out of court, as happened in


the past on the part of both major parties.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Harry West: I have been greatly impressed by the degree of sympathy expressed on both sides of the House for the measure we are now discussing and for the note of realism in many speeches. Admittedly, one of the speeches from the Labour benches rather spoilt the picture by introducing the allegation of discrimination in local authorities. I hope that when hon. Members feel disturbed about the political propaganda which has been put out in the past about discrimination in local authorities, and, indeed, in central Government, they will take the trouble to read the Cameron Report in respect of allegations made against discrimination in central Government and also Professor Rose's report on his investigation into alleged discrimination in local authorities. Those reports clear both central Government and local government of any allegations of that nature. I hope that hon. Members will turn up those reports to verify what I have said.
We are in this debate discussing the future structure in Northern Ireland, and there has been speculation about what will come out of the Constitutional Convention. The burning issue of under-representation in this House will undoubtedly get an airing. We did not campaign on increased representation in this House from a selfish interest, because we well know that if there were increased representation in this House the minority parties would benefit.
I should like to put on record what under-representaion in this House means in terms of the United Kingdom. Scotland, with 71 Members of Parliament in this House, has a representation of one hon. Member per 73,000 of population. In Wales, with 30 Members of Parliament, the representation is one per 75,500 of population. In England, with 511 Members of Parliament, the representation is one Member per 89,700 of population. In Northern Ireland, with 12 Members of Parliament represented here, the figure is one Member per 128,000 of population. The House will appreciate from those figures the degree of under-representation that exists for Northern

Ireland in this House. I appreciate that this is not a matter for discussion today; it arises out of speculation which might accrue from the discussions in the Constitutional Convention.
We have been treated in Northern Ireland recently to a half-page advertisement which has appeared in most of the Press. It is a Government publication. I question the correctness of financing a political document from public funds; I believe that this should not be done. I admit that it was done also by the Conservative Government, but it is undoubtedly a political document which does not set out all the facts, and I repeat that it should not be financed from public funds.
The document makes the point that the first step is to allow time for discussion among various political groups before elections are held. I take it that this refers to the elections in respect of the Constitutional Convention. I wonder what merit there is in allowing time for political groupings to get together for discussion. I thought the whole reason for an election was to allow political groupings to get together representative of the people. The business of delaying the elections is ill advised. The party I represent, and my colleagues in our coalition, will not engage in political discussions until after the election has been held.
The other point I wish to raise relates to the financial relationship that exists between Northern Ireland and the the United Kingdom. I detected in the Secretary of State's speech a note of threat if we did not accept the situation. Feeling in Northern Ireland is hardening over these threats in respect of financial aid from Britain. I should like to deal with the threat or intimidation or browbeating that is taking place. In the United Kingdom as a whole all regions need each other and we all have a part to play. In spite of the recent disagreement, North Sea oil should be at the disposal of the whole of the United Kingdom. England depends very much on Wales to supply water for the industrial areas of the Midlands.
In Northern Ireland we occupy a strategic position, but that is not our only value to the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland we have


one of the most efficient agricultural industries in Europe, if not farther afield. This should occupy the attention of Her Majesty's Government in a very real way. If the agricultural industry of the United Kingdom is allowed to drift further into the doldrums, and if some long-term measure is not introduced to cope with the situation, the national situation will suffer in terms of cost of living and other matters. Northern Ireland makes a great contribution to the national larder through its agricultural industry, and I hope that the Government will tackle the situation realistically so that the confidence of the United Kingdom as a whole will be restored and so that production will be increased. This must happen if we are to avoid disaster in two or three years' time in respect of the supply of food in these densely populated islands.
I should like to deal with one or two further points touching the financial relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In the past, and indeed up to March 1972, nearly all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland was made through the Northern Ireland Government on the basis of an annual budget presented to Parliament. That budget was discussed and negotiated between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance and the British Government. Once direct rule was imposed, the United Kingdom Government made large increases in expenditure in Northern Ireland which were no longer subject to the scrutiny or direction of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Some may say that this was done partly to reinforce a political argument to strengthen the case against a hypothetical claim for independence, or to stress Northern Ireland's dependence on Britain and to reflect the fact that such political aspirations as were apparent in Northern Ireland were expensive and unprofitable. There is no desire for independence for Northern Ireland among the political groupings with which I am involved. My colleagues and I in the coalition value membership of the United Kingdom, and we have repeatedly said that we will campaign to stay within the United Kingdom. But we shall also ensure that no policies will be applied to us by the present Government, or any other Government, in an effort to draw our country

into a United Ireland. Our financial relationships are of great importance to us.
We also understand that the power to go on making additional expenditures in Northern Ireland and appropriating them to specific objects without consulting the elected representatives of our Province lies in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
The simplest and possibly the most accessible source of facts and figures about Northern Ireland's public finances is provided by the successive volumes of the Ulster Year Book. There hon. Members who are interested will find references to the parliamentary papers and public accounts to substantiate what I say and these will give fuller details if they are required.
We have heard several references to industry and commerce. We have the Prime Minister's allegation that the people of Northern Ireland are spongers, and this is fallacious in more than one way. In this House the Prime Minister spoke as though we were to imagine that Government expenditure and the collection of taxes represented the sole flow of payments either way between Britain and Northern Ireland, and as though the economic worth of Northern Ireland was limited to its taxable capacity, which is very far from the case.
There are two other flows of Government money. They are commerce—exports and imports—and the profit from investment in Northern Ireland. Both these are larger in cash realities than the inflow of Government money into Northern Ireland.
I take my facts from what I regard as a reliable source. It is the Journal of the Institute of Marketing. The facts are that since 1969 manufacturing output in Northern Ireland has risen by more than 22 per cent. while productivity has increased by more than 28 per cent. Moreover, in 1972, which is the last year for which precise details are available, the 1½ million people in Northern Ireland exported £937 million worth of goods, and the total trade of the Province was worth £1,854 million. That is not a bad effort for 1½ million people. It represented increases of 9 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively compared with 1971.
Proportionately, it can be shown, those figures are very much better than those for the remainder of the United Kingdom. In 1972, which is the latest year for which Government figures are available, Northern Ireland's visible exports were £935 million, whereas imports were £937 million. The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom as a whole in 1972 were £9,749 million for exports and £11,155 million for imports. I make no attempt to relate those to the Northern Ireland figures. I content myself with reminding the House that the population of Northern Ireland is about one thirty-fifth of that of the United Kingdom.
As I said before, information on these subjects can be obtained from the Ulster Year Book and various publications of the Northern Ireland Ministries of Finance and Commerce. They can be obtained also from standard reference books, such as the Statesman Year Book.
A large proportion of the produce exported from Northern Ireland comes to Britain. However, much of this consists of goods in transit for further export, and in many cases they go to hard currency areas. The extent of it is not sufficiently quantified, but reasonable estimates can be obtained from year to year.
Against these very high Northern Ireland export figures, which amount on paper to more than three times the value of exports per head from the United Kingdom as a whole—and the Institute of Marketing figure discloses that it is four times—nevertheless our standard of living in Northern Ireland is lower. In 1972 the gross domestic product for Northern Ireland was only £725 per head, against £959 per head in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Personal income per head in Northern Ireland was only £781 as again £993 in Britain.
I admit readily that, as a basis for reaching conclusions, the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom export and import figures have to be looked at with many reservations and qualifications because we are comparing a much larger area with a part of the whole. But they are in sufficiently striking contrast to in-dictate that the people of Northern Ireland are producing for export from their own region on a much bigger scale proportionately to their numbers than the people in most of the other regions of the

United Kingdom. At the same time, while they are thus producing more wealth and delivering more goods to others, people in Northern Ireland remain poorer than people in Britain.
One obvious major reason for this is that, although Northern Ireland enjoys the wages and other local expenditures of its industries, the profits go elsewhere. They go mainly to Britain, whence most of the initial investment came.
On the question of investment generally, apart from the profits of industry, wealth also leaves Northern Ireland in other forms. There is an enormous British investment in Northern Ireland. But, in the absence of a special survey, we can but speculate as to its total extent. A speculative estimate at the beginning of 1973 put the total value of British property in Northern Ireland at £10 million. Certainly a great part of Northern Ireland in terms of land, buildings, business enterprises and other property, much of it the subject of rapid appreciation in these times of inflation, is owned by persons and interests in Britain, and over the years take-over operations have left almost no large locally-owned enterprises in Northern Ireland. On most of this property and investment there must be substantial returns, and, since Northern Ireland is not the home of any substantial rentier class, there is relatively little corresponding flow from Britain to Northern Ireland.
Thus, Northern Ireland is economically very active, is highly productive and has a faster growth rate than Britain, yet it is relatively improverished, like a number of other peripheral areas in the United Kingdom. Its low taxation yield follows from this, and a relatively higher Exchequer expenditure represents only a modicum of justice to a region which, far from being a poor relation or a community of spongers, makes a better proportionate contribution to the trade balance and the balance of payments of the United Kingdom than most other regions.
I make these points to show that the productive energy of the people of Northern Ireland and their exports per head of the population are such that if we had to leave the United Kingdom or were forced out of the United Kingdom and had to plot our own economic course outside the United Kingdom we should succeed.
There is no point in issuing figures to try to threaten the people of Northern Ireland into thinking that if Britain as a whole withdrew support from Northern Ireland the Province would founder. A country with the ability to export produce at the rate that I have mentioned could plot its own economic course. I stress that we do not want to leave the United Kingdom. There are other reasons why we want to stay. But I hope sincerely that what I have said will end the threat, which seems to have cropped up in the various speeches that we have heard, about Northern Ireland having to do this and that—or else.
Now that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, I should like to offer him a little advice which I sincerely hope he will take in the spirit in which it is given. I give it to him as I have given it to other Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. I said to a previous Secretary of State that it was well known that Ulster was a political graveyard of many British politicians, even in recent times. I ask the Secretary of State not to appear to do down the Protestant population in Northern Ireland. I am offering this advice in the hope that relationships will improve.
Since coming to this House I have noted on many occasions that the Secretary of State, when making statements about happenings in Northern Ireland, has referred to the Protestant/Catholic element. I hope that that distinction between religious groups will not occur in future. There is a minority and a majority in Northern Ireland. The longer we go on pinpointing the religious difference, which has little relevance, the longer will this unpleasantness exist.
For example, in mentioning bombed public houses the Secretary of State should try to avoid talking about Roman Catholic public houses having been bombed, thus inferring that it was done by Protestants. That kind of thing is distasteful to the community in Northern Ireland, and I sincerely hope that it will not happen again.
Northern Ireland has been destroyed. Our property has been bombed and some of our friends have been seriously injured or killed. There is something in each of us that gives a degree of loyalty and patriotism to our native soil. In the

1939–45 struggle everybody in this House of the proper age made his contribution in one way or another to save this country from being overrun. The people of Ireland, without conscription at that time, also played their part. The cenotaphs play silent memory to those who flocked to the colours to save the mother country from disaster.
We in Northern Ireland are just as patriotic and loyal to our native soil as are people in Britain to theirs. We will fight to the end. Sir Winston Churchill, when stimulating the nation and mentioning the possibility of a German invasion of Britain, said that Britons would fight in the lanes, the roads, the ditches, and all the rest. We in Northern Ireland will do the same if there is any threat of a take-over by Eire.
I have always maintained that there are more ways of taking Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic than physical force. The mishandling of the situation during the last five years and the dreadful conditions that we have experienced have driven many young progressive people from the Province altogether. By this means and by the continuation of this trouble many more of our young, valuable citizens will leave. Our young people, the cream of our community, are leaving the Province. We want a country in which these young people can grow up and prosper. But we must make it plain that if, as a result of the Constitutional Convention, the terms at which we arrive in the final analysis appear unacceptable to this House, we can do little about it. We must be the final judge of the threat to Northern Ireland by a hostile neighbour.
The Eire Government, by claiming sovereignty over our part of the United Kingdom, are offending against the rules of the European Economic Community. I have mentioned this matter previously to the Secretary of State but have had only a feeble answer. It is a fact that this is going on. All these matters are bound to aggravate people in Northern Ireland.
Those of us who may be re-elected will undoubtedly welcome the opportunity of sitting down with newly elected representatives from all sections of the community to work out the salvation of our Province. Whether the coalition in which


I find myself at the moment comes out as the majority party or not, we support the idea of this Convention. If another majority party is thrown up in the suggestions which come from the Constitutional Convention, we will take our place as the official Opposition in a properly constituted and democratically elected assembly in Northern Ireland.

7.25 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: This has been an interesting debate, with a number of thoughtful and useful contributions. I shall serve the House badly if I take any time, because there is a lot of business to be dealt with.
I should like to ask the Minister of State for an assurance on one matter that concerns me. In opening the debate the Secretary of State said that the rules for the Convention were flexible. I agree. Flexibility is the key here. But I am a little fussed about the time that can be taken before we get finality.
For example, in Schedule 2, paragraph 15(1), we have up to six months. There could be endless extensions. If we had only two extensions under sub-paragraph (2), that would be 12 months in all. There could then be a reference back as late as another six months and two more extensions of three months. Therefore, we could easily reach two years, and that two years would start only after the poll, and we do not know when the poll is to be.
What worries me is that if a committee is asked to consider and report and is told that there is no time limit within which it must report, in my experience it takes much longer than it otherwise would. I hope that some pressure in a proper way will be put upon the Convention to report quickly and not allow it to spin out its proceedings because finality is vital.
I think that anxiety about delay has caused many hon. Members today to speak of increased representation. That argument must be based on a pessimistic prognosis for the future. If we had an Assembly with anything like the power of Stormont, which we hope may eventually be the result, the argument for more Members would be much weaker. But it is impossible to reach a solution until we know what powers the new Assembly

is to have, and that we shall not know until the Convention reports.
The legitimacy and effectiveness of the Government is the crucial issue at stake In the present situation in Northern Ireland any solution can only be a compromise which, by its nature, is unlikely to please everyone. However, it must be a solution which does not leave large sections of the community permanently alienated or disposed to resist by force. In these circumstances, I join many hon. Members who wish well this attempt to find the solution, and pray that it will succeed.

7.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): First, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), about the pressure or the time limit on the Convention.
In the proposed Bill there is a six-months' limit, which can be extended by three months and subsequent periods of three months. The pressure, as the Government see it, is that both Houses of Parliament will have to renew the terms of any extension. If the Convention comes back after six months for a renewal, hon. Members will, without passing a final judgment, naturally want to review the progress which has been made and to comment upon it. I think that any Government would allow time for debate on that point. Therefore, without wanting to appear to be exerting pressure from the Government, I think that Parliament would have to be the body that takes note of that point.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) emphasised the difference in wording between paragraph 55 of the White Paper and Clause 2 in the matter of power sharing. There is no real difference. We do not want to get involved in an argument about semantics. When we talk about acceptability and being representative of the community as a whole, we mean that any solution must be acceptable to both communities. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made this clear when he passed his first judgment upon the White Paper.
We want a solution to be arrived at by the people in Northern Ireland themselves, through the Convention and


through any proposals that are put forward, and it would be naive for any hon. Member to think that we mean anything other than a solution that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland. The Convention may come forward with proposals which do not meet the terms of this wording, but it will be for this House to decide whether what is proposed meets the standards in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that we can dodge that issue, and the Government have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Gentleman's last words have to some extent quietened my anxieties. I thought he was saying that unless both communities accept the conclusions of the Convention the British Government will not accept them either. Is that not too rigid a position to take up?

Mr. Orme: We are not saying that. The Government have gone out of their way—members of the UUUC coalition have acknowledged this—to set out the matter in the most open way and leave it to the Convention to arrive at its decision. I think it is recognised that within the specified parameters there have to be standards which Parliament is entitled to ask people to bear in mind when corning to their decisions.
There are those who claim that they want to remain members of the United Kingdom. That view has been emphasised this afternoon. It would therefore be right for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to say "You must make your own decisions, but there are standards which appertain in England, Wales and Scotland and these cannot be ignored in Northern Ireland". That is the point that we are making.

Captain Orr: I wish that the Minister of State would not set up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down again. Nobody in Ulster wants a constitution which does not have standards which are normally acceptable throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Orme: I welcome the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intervention. I noted the forcefulness of his interesting speech, but I must tell him that some of the speeches made in this House, and certainly some made outside it, do not measure up to the standards that we have

in mind. Certainly on Friday there was one speech which did not measure up to these standards. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not want to defend that kind of view, but it is right that the Government should state clearly what is in the Bill. This is not said in the form of a threat. We are merely setting out the parameters within which any constitutional conference should consider how it proposes to go forward.

Mr. West: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about standards that are acceptable to this House. If, in the event, the Convention decides by a majority against power sharing, how will the Parliament at Westminster be able to reject that finding, seeing that it does not accept power sharing in its own institutions?

Mr. Orme: This is not a numbers game. When we talk about majorities and minorities, we talk about two communities. The right hon. Gentleman does not like my right hon. Friend referring to Catholic and Protestant communities, but that is what we are talking about. We are talking about what was acceptable under the Constitution Act of 1973, which the Labour Party supported. We are talking about standards that are normally acceptable. We are going into this in the hope that both communities will accept what comes out of the Convention and that the standards of the proposals will be acceptable to this Parliament. That is what we are talking about, and that is what we mean by that form of power sharing.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the Convention would be held at Stormont, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the Convention should be held in a different place. There are security problems here. It is not possible for the Convention to meet in the centre of Belfast. I do not think that the Europa Hotel would be an ideal site for the Convention. Stormont has the facilities for the Convention. The rooms are available, and the necessary staff are there. It is more than likely that the Convention will be held at Stormont, but no final decision has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Convention would sit in


camera. The Convention will have to decide that for itself. There may be occasions when it wants to meet in private, as opposed to meeting publicly. We have found that it is difficult to keep things private or confidential in Northern Ireland because, quite naturally, on occasions there is a certain inquisitiveness for information.
The Convention will have to regulate its own meetings. It will be for the Convention to decide whether to sit in public or in private, in the knowledge that people in Northern Ireland will want to know what is going on, just as people in the rest of the United Kingdom will want to know what is happening. There may be occasions on which, irrespective of leaks, it would be advantageous for the Convention to meet in camera, but I repeat that the decision will be for the Convention itself.
One of the issues that has been raised today in some detail is that of the chairmanship of the Convention. The Government considered this matter for a long time before finally coming down to what is proposed in the White Paper. Our view is that the chairman should be an independent person appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and be, as it were, divorced from what in that sense will be the elected representatives of the Convention. Naturally, the Government would not appoint someone who was not acceptable to the vast majority of people on the Convention. It will be very difficult to find a suitable person. It is odd that some hon. Members have suggested on one occasion that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to resolve the difficulties and then on another occasion have wanted to go to the other end of the world to find someone to chair such a Convention.
I am sure that the members of the Convention will not want a protracted battle over the chairmanship. That is why my right hon. Friend must be in a position to act fairly swiftly, while naturally taking into account the representations made to him not only in this debate but when the Convention has been elected. It would be wrong to say that consultations should take place, because they could be protracted. If Northern Ireland is to resolve its own

problems, and the people are to do it through a Convention and make proposals to this House, it would be rather contradictory if they could not accept a chairman from Northern Ireland whom they might find it difficult to work under. Therefore, there is a responsibility on Northern Ireland people themselves.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Do we take it that the chairman will not be appointed until after the election and that there will be consultations with the newly-elected members of the Convention about the person who shall preside over it? I have always held the view that it would be better for the chairman to have been elected, but I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has done. He will pick an Ulster man to preside. However, there is a general feeling in Northern Ireland that the people would like the Secretary of State to preside. Whether or not they want to get at him I do not know, but that is the general feeling.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend has ruled himself out by the terms of the White Paper. He has in mind to listen to representations and possibly not put forward the chairman for nomination until after the election, though that is not the hard and fast position. That will, in effect, allow him to take the feelings of suitable people and listen to representations. We are far from having any name or names yet from which to consider the nomination.

Captain Orr: I very much welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is very sensible not to proceed to the chairmanship until after the election. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that the terms of the Bill, although slightly different from the White Paper, do not rule out the Secretary of State? There is something to be said for his involvement with the developing situation from day to day rather than leave the possibility of an ultimate clash between the Convention and the Secretary of State.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is absolutely right. The terms of the Bill do not preclude anyone's being appointed, but the White Paper guidelines state that the chairman should be a Northern Ireland person. There are obvious reasons for that.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend rebukes me, albeit gently, saying "Here is a man who believes that the problems of Ulster should be settled by Ulstermen but wants to go across the Atlantic to find the chairman." Both my right hon. Friend and I attended a conference where it was agreed that there was no obvious Ulster man for the position of chairman, and believing that an Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman might be resented, I thought that it might be a good idea to go across the Atlantic.

Mr. Orme: I do not want to get into a debating situation with my hon. Friend. He and I were at the Oxford conference, but there were distinguished people, some of them hon. Members, who were not present. Therefore, I do not believe that it was fully representative of Ulster opinion. It is a difficult question. I have tried to show that we are neither being pedantic nor trying to rush the matter. We must try to get it right.

Mr. Stallard: We are all very interested in the question of the chairman. I recognise the precision that is used when we talk about Northern Ireland. I know from the exchanges so far that an Ulster man could be a man from Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan. [Interruption.] This is a serious point. Carson was a Dublin man. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned Ulster. Ulster means nine counties. Does this imply that we could have a chairman from one of the three out of the 26 counties?

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is being as subtle as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill precludes nobody. The White Paper states specifically that the recommendation should be a Northern Ireland person. But, unless, it became almost impossible, it would be the Government's intention to proceed along the lines I have indicated.
I come to the next of the major points which are not strictly germane to the Bill, but which have been raised very forcefully by hon. Members, concerning representation at Westminster. I spoke in an intervention of 50 years of Stormont rule, with a large measure of devolution, which in those days included security, and then the election of the Assembly, which again allowed a large

measure of devolution, certainly on economic matters, and which could have led to matters including policing, if suitable agreements had been arrived at. Allowing for those matters, many people could argue that Ulster, both in Northern Ireland itself and at Westminster, was well represented.
I should make it clear that from the Government's point of view, and not least the Labour Party's point of view, increased representation would be strongly resisted at this stage, certainly before the Convention had made recommendations. It is open to the Convention to consider any issue. It is very unlikely that the Government could agree to increased representation outside the terms of the Bill.
It could be argued that increasing representation, rather than allowing Northern Ireland people to resolve their problems in Northern Ireland, would simply transfer the matter to the House of Commons. Rather than diminishing the problems, that could increase them, not least if, as hon. Members opposite suggest, it could mean increased representation for minorities, which might be completely opposed to the policies being put forward by the Government. It is a highly contentious point, and there are strong feelings on both sides.
In the Government's view, to increase representation would be to fly in the face of history and would not resolve anything. Ulster Members must take into account feelings of people in the test of the United Kingdom who might think that the problems should not be transferred to the Floor of this House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is an important point. He is not, however, coming to the real problem, which is that this House will be the final arbiter of the Northern Ireland situation, being the sovereign Parliament. Therefore, when the recommendations come from the Convention the Northern Ireland people should be properly represented in this House, because it has the final say. That is the nub of the argument.

Mr. Orme: I see that. This argument is not strictly related to the debate, but I thought it would be wrong to avoid the strong points that have been put forward


and pretend that they do not exist. The hon. Gentleman is saying that there ought to be representation here to consider the recommendations which come from the Convention. That Convention will have a 100 per cent. Northern Irish membership, including its chairman. I would have thought that, that being so, Parliament at Westminster could consider any recommendations without further representation from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Miscampbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make one thing clear? In his clear rejection of increased representation for Northern Ireland so that it may achieve equality with other sections of the community, is he also rejecting any increase in representation which would be required if Kilbrandon were implemented? Does he reject an increase of the number to 18, with devolution?

Mr. Orme: Kilbrandon is being considered by the Government. It will need legislation. It is not for the Government to decide these matters. They might decide in principle that some changes ought to be made but it would be for a boundary commisison to deal with the matter. That could have a delaying effect upon the Convention. I know the strength of feeling on this issue in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend and I feel that by meeting the immediate demands for a Convention elected in Northern Ireland drawn from the people of Northern Ireland we are going a long way to meet this point.

Captain Orr: The Minister of State has misunderstood the situation if he thinks that the only demand was for elections to the Convention. The other leg of the demand was proper representation in this House. It is vitally important that he should understand that. With great respect, the argument that this would delay the work of the Convention does not hold up, because elections to the Convention can go ahead. The right hon. Gentleman can ask the boundary commission to determine what would be a fair representation for Northern Ireland in this House on any basis that might be thought necessary.

Mr. Orme: I am afraid that I have to say clearly, on behalf of the Government, that this policy is absolutely clear. We cannot at the moment countenance

any change in representation. I say that in the fairest manner. I have heard the argument about Kilbrandon. There are hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who came to see the Government at the time of the Ulster Workers' Council strike. The demands then were purely and simply for fresh elections and an ending of the Sunning-dale set-up. They had nothing to do with any other points of view. I do not say it is wrong for Members to develop such arguments. But it is not in the Bill. On a Second Reading debate it is probably in order for us to discuss this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have discussed it all afternoon I think it would be a bit late now to decide that it was not in order. I must make it clear that this is not my point of view, not the point of view of the Secretary of State—it is the Government's view that there can be no legislation at present.

Mr. Beith: While I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman has said about "at present", may I ask him to do something to dispel the impression he is creating that if the Convention were to recommend, as part of its package of proposals, that Northern Ireland representation in this House should be at parity with that of the rest of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would not find that acceptable? Will he make it clear that that is not what he is saying?

Mr. Orme: I am not closing that argument at all. What I have said is that these decisions cannot be taken ahead of the Convention. If the Convention were to produce recommendations representative of both communities on this point, Parliament would obviously have to consider them. It would be foolish for any party to say that such matters could not be considered. The Government are saying that extra representation cannot be considered at the moment. That is Government policy.
Another major point made during the debate concerned the link with the United Kingdom, the responsibility of this Parliament and the Constitution Act. There was talk about the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East being more important than the words written into the Constitution Act. The Government want


to make it absolutely clear that the Constitution Act remains on the statute book. The provisions of Sections 1 and 16 will flow. If the Convention comes forward with proposals making it possible to reactivate Section 2, the Government will reactivate it.
I have heard impassioned arguments about the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland. We are under no illusion as to that. Any Government would have to take that into account. However, the rest of the United Kingdom also has a point of view on this issue. Some hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, have said on occasion that if all else fails UDI is the only alternative. I have had it put to me strongly by those representing working-class Protestants that such people saw a form of UDI as being the answer for Northern Ireland.
I know that that is not acceptable to a great number of people in this House. I know that there are people in the community who support that point of view and the hon. Member for Antrim, North is honest enough to admit it. When we have one argument posed against the other we have also to take into account the views of the rest of the United Kingdom. I have met people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised this matter with me when I have been speaking about matters other than Northern Ireland. There is a restiveness about the situation which the House and the people of Northern Ireland ought to take fully into account.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the elected representatives in this House who have spoken about this point have made it clear that only in the event of a choice having been made by the majority of people to go into a united Ireland would they prefer to go it alone? We in this House who are from Northern Ireland come here as Unionists and not as nationalists. I completely repudiate Ulster nationalism in that sense. We are not Ulster nationalists but Ulster Unionists. Therefore, we want more representation in the House. It would be churlish of me not to say that uninformed people may say "Yes, we wish to have a UDI", but those of us who believe that we should remain within

the United Kingdom, and who would go for independence only if we were pushed into a united Ireland, have always said that that would have to be by negotiation. It could not be by a unilateral declaration.

Mr. Orme: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity on this matter. I am not imputing any motives to him. However, I quoted the right hon. Member for Belfast, East in this regard. I could also quote members of the Ulster Workers' Council who made this point to me during and after the UWC strike and who said to me that they were Ulster nationalists. My right hon. Friend was criticised for using that phrase. It is not just one block as it were. There are differing views among both communities on central issues. All that I draw the attention of the House to is the fact that it exists.

Captain Orr: The Minister of State is very courteous in giving way. Will he take it from me that only a tiny minority would fancy any such thing? The vast majority of the Protestant population of Ulster want to remain part of the United Kingdom, with all the obligations and all the lights that that entails—and that goes for many of the Catholic community as well?

Mr. Orme: I am interested to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that. We shall wait for reactions from people, not least some in this House and some in Northern Ireland, to see whether they measure up to that point of view. However, we can leave the matter in that setting.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) asked about the position of Sinn Fein and the Provisionals, and detainees during the election, and about Loyalists and Republicans who are in the Maze at present. There is nothing at present in the law to prevent any person standing for election. Moreover we de-proscribed Sinn Fein and the UVF, and there is no reason why a candidate should not put himself forward as a representative of one of those organisations or advocate the views of such an organisation. There is, therefore, no bar on persons standing for election who wish to advocate the views of, for instance, extremist organisations. We all want advocacy by political means and not by violence. Detainees can vote and


stand at an election conducted in accordance with the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, which is a statute that will apply for the election of the Convention. Detainees can vote if their name is on the register and they are not otherwise disfranchised. It is important to point this fact out because there may be convicted people who would not qualify on this point.
My hon. Friend may ask about the position of candidates and whether they would be allowed to campaign or to come out on parole. That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend. He would obviously look at it in the interests of the election as a whole. But there are certain responsibilities upon him which it would not be possible to decide in this House this evening.

Mr. Stallard: My right hon. Friend has replied to a very important question. I think that the whole House would agree that we would want to leave no excuses for anyone saying that he could not participate in the election to the Convention. One of the problems raised by members of both communities when I was last in the Six Counties was the question of political organisations. Many of the people at present detained or interned in Long Kesh, Magilligan and Armagh are there for purely political reasons or be-because of their political backgrounds.
I am talking not of the convicted people but of the detainees and internees. Some of those who were detained in August 1971 are still there, and have never committed a crime. Those who are detained for purely political reasons would have difficulty in organising a political campaign from there.

Mr. Orme: I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings about internment. No one would deny that. He is not the only person who has strong feelings on the issue. No one is interned for political views in the Maze at present.

Mr. Stallard: In August 1971 people who had not been involved in anything were detained. Why were they sent there?

Mr. Orme: I ask my hon. Friend to watch this position, or to wait for a while. I do not think that he will then be able to make that allegation.
I come now to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He made some interesting observations. We may all be in the interesting position of having been a member of a Government which took decisions for which there was a collective responsibility when at a later date we have to express what our feelings were at the time that the Government took those decisions. The right hon. Gentleman put forward his views in a very fair manner. I listened to what he said about power sharing. I refer him to what I said originally about this issue. Much depends on it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not making a political debating point about Labour or Conservative policy. But when we talk of power sharing in the context of Northern Ireland, we are not talking about coalitions in a political sense in which parties may or may not become involved on this side of the Irish Sea. We are talking about a power sharing which, in a sense, brings together the Protestant working class and the Catholic working class, we hope, who probably have economic aspirations which are identical but can find no means of politically expressing them together.
That is the difficulty as we understand it. It goes just as much for people with Conservative leanings or Liberal leanings. I make no party political point in that regard. The Government see this issue of genuine power sharing as a first step towards normal political activity within Northern Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there were people of different political persuasions in the previous Executive, but they were there as a stepping stone to what we should like to see as normality in political expression. The most important thing that has happened in Northern Ireland flowing from the recent upheaval is that the Protestant working class is beginning to associate itself in economic and in political terms in a manner which we would understand in this country. We want to see that develop.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and others raised the question of the date of the election. There is an amendment down on this question. The hon. Member for Antrim, North misunderstood our interpretation. It is not our intention that people should start the


political dialogue before the Convention if they do not want to. We hope that new groups will be formed which are more representative and which have—dare I say it?—a more Socialist basis than exists now.
Again, I say with all sincerity that this point of view has been pressed upon me by leading members of the majority. The strongest arguments we hear for almost immediate elections come from elected representatives in this House. My right hon. Friend and myself do not receive such representations when we are in Northern Ireland meeting representative groups.

Mr. West: I hope that the Minister of State recognises that we 12 elected Members have a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland to speak on their behalf. He does not have such a mandate. The House should listen to our view rather than the views of people who have not been elected by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: I do not think that someone who sat in with the UWC should talk about a mandate. We received representations from the previous Northern Ireland Members that they had a mandate. The right hon. Gentleman was elected on 28th February. Events have moved on since then.
The most interesting point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he, having gone on against any form of Irish dimension, finally arrived at it when he talked about the Common Market and the fact that this could melt away the border and all else that exists. I noticed that there was a silence from behind me. On this issue I join forces with most hon. Members opposite. I see no future in this regard. It is not strictly relevant to the problems facing Northern Ireland.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), the Parliamentary Commissioner was due to report to the Assembly. He will now report to this Parliament when he has any reports to make. No doubt Northern Ireland Members will want to make representations on the question whether the matter should go to a committee. In other

words, just as the other matters have been regularised by my right hon. Friend in the Bill, so is the matter of the Parliamentary Commissioner in this regard being regularised.
I have taken far longer than I intended. I have not made a speech. I have tried to answer some of the serious points that have been raised. I may not have satisfied all hon. Members. We believe that the Government's policy as laid down in the Bill meets the main points which have been raised with us. We have stipulated what we believe the safeguards should be. I therefore hope that the House will accord the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Further proceedings stood postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the existing Northern Ireland Assembly and its prorogation until dissolution; to make temporary provision for the government of Northern Ireland; and to provide for the election and holding of a Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any costs incurred by a government department (including a Northern Ireland department) in connection with the election of that Convention or any poll held by virtue of that Act for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of a report of the Convention or otherwise concerned with the future government of Northern Ireland;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in connection with that Convention, not being costs falling within paragraph (a) above;
(c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by that Act to be so paid.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Clause 1

DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION OF EXIST ING ASSEMBLY AND TEMPORARY PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I had an amendment down which has not been selected. I should like the Secretary of State to think sympathetically about the amendment.
We are in a peculiar position about the Assembly now prorogued. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech earlier—I appreciate it—that he would not dissolve the Assembly because he felt that people should retain their elected representatives and that the elected representatives were entitled to carry on as such in regard to those matters on which they could make representations to him.
We in the United Ulster Unionist Party have grave doubts about whether those people represent the people of Northern Ireland, but we have a situation where another Member has been returned in a by-election to the prorogued Assembly. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—it was the fault not of this administration but of the previous one—that this seat was kept vacant for over a year and the people of North Antrim were not permitted to have their full representation because the previous administration felt that the seat would change hands and Mr. Faulkner's party would be one fewer in n umber.
As it transpired, Mr. Faulkner's candidate forfeited her deposit and a United Ulster Unionist was elected with almost 30,000 votes. This gentleman now finds that he is having difficulty even in getting back his deposit. We expect a candidate who does not get the required number of votes to lose his deposit. However, under the rules of the Assembly the only way in which a person can get his deposit back is by signing the roll and being admitted a Member. I am sure that the Secretary

of State would not agree that a person would want to forfeit his deposit and not be able to withdraw it—in fact, he would have sympathy with such a person.
I understand that there is a provision which says that if the person has some physical or mental disability or some other cause—evidently a physical cause—he can get his deposit back. This matter must be dealt with by the present administration. The Secretary of State has graciously said that he will look upon this person as a representative of the people. I think that the Government could in some way—probably by an Order in Council—recognise this man as a properly elected representative. He has been elected by over 29,000 votes. I represent this area in the House of Commons. When I was elected to the Assembly I had only 14,000 votes. The quota was only just over 10,000. Yet others who do not get the quota are regarded as Members and draw pay and allowances, while this man is forbidden by the law to do so. I should like the Secretary of State to consider that carefully and sympathetically.
I am sorry that we are unable to discuss this matter on an amendment. I have taken the way that any parliamentarian would adopt to raise the matter. I hope that after the Glorious Twelfth the Secretary of State will be in good form and will sympathetically consider what I have said—and I hope that I have not riled him by saying that.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised a matter that greatly concerns me. He pointed out that there was not a by-election for some time. I have not checked the date, but I think that it was because an order dealing with by-elections was made shortly after the present Government took office.
So far as I am aware, the subject of the remuneration of a Member is a matter for the assembly concerned, and the Assembly is still in being, although prorogued. I am therefore on difficult ground in having to reply. I assure the hon. Member that I shall look into the payment of the gentleman who was elected. At the same time—I am choosing my words carefully—whatever has been done, and I will look into that, this is a matter for the Assembly, and it would be wrong for me to be positive beyond that.
The hon. Member has raised this matter very properly, and I assure him that it will be considered. My advice is that the gentleman concerned should write to the Clerk of the Assembly. My feeling is that this matter is within the purview of the Assembly, just as matters of pay for Members of Parliament here are within the purview of the House of Commons.
The deposit is a matter that concerns me. Although remuneration is properly a matter for the Assembly, as it is for Members of Parliament here, matters pertaining to the electoral rules are for the Secretary of State. This is one of the powers reserved for this House.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at that. It seems to be a technical matter of getting the deposit back if the Assembly is prorogued, because it will eventually be de-prorogued—or whatever the correct legal term is—and the deposit will then be refundable. I should like to look at that, because it seems that it will need legislation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ON FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Captain Orr: There are two small matters that I want to raise before we come to the main bulk of this argument. Earlier, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked about the reports of the Convention and expressed some anxiety that from time to time the House of Commons should be able to judge between, say, majority and minority reports. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the reports would definitely be from the Convention. It would therefore be useful to have some indication of the majorities if decisions are taken, so that we have some idea of the strength of a majority and of the minority dissenting.
The second matter concerns polls. Subsection (3) is slightly alarming. What is worrying is that this great power in the hands of the Secretary of State, if used irresponsibly—I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to use it lightly—could result in a whole series of polls on a whole lot of questions which an irresponsible Secretary of State might think useful to try to influence the deliberations of the Assembly.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more about how he envisages the polls being used. Unlike the Newfoundland poll, a single poll, these are not to be mandatory, but we should have some idea of what the right hon. Gentleman intends.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to take up a matter that was raised earlier—namely, the precise criteria on which these questions are to be framed. That is an extremely important consideration, for answers can be influenced by the way in which questions are framed.
I do not accuse the Secretary of State of ill will, malice or anything else, but, as hon. Members know, it is easy to frame questions to get the answers one wants,. and there are many examples of that. It is less than satisfactory to resort to this kind of polling without being clear about the basis of the framing of the question.
It may be said that this is a matter for the future, that it may never happen, that it is a recondite argument. I am not so sure that it is such a recondite argument, for even in this House we have unsuspectingly allowed provisions to go through, rather like Mr. Micawber, only later to find ourselves hamstrung. As others could, I could develop all sorts of pictures of what questions could be asked to create tremendous resentment, and I therefore want to be clear about the basis of the questions.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked about the Convention's reports and how they were to be presented. A great deal must be left to two factors. First, I intend to publish a document about the procedures of the Convention. It will be a discussion document—perhaps that is the best way to describe it—allowing the subject to be


opened up. It will be concerned with how the Convention is to report to the House.
The voting will be a matter of public knowledge. However, I do not foresee the future of Northern Ireland being determined by a legislature voting late at night by 290 to 278 with the Whips on and so on, as occurs here. I do not foresee the Convention working in that way. Of course there are bound to be votes, and, of course, the voting must be taken into account, but we shall also have to take note of the fact that the future of Northern Ireland could be determined by 40 votes to 38 in favour of a particular process. A Convention is a more civilised way of dealing with it than is normal in a legislature because, after all, there are understandings about the way in which the House votes by the nature of the determination of an election. We used to notice how the Press made a big thing about the result of a vote in the House—and understandably so. There are bound to be votes in the Convention, and the result of the election to that Convention is important, but I do not see matters being completely determined in an arithemetical sort of way.
I was in some doubt whether to include the poll in the Bill. I thought it was good sense, however, to put it in in case it was needed. Who knows what the timing will be? Too often in my short period in office have I wished that I had certain powers. On the wording of any poll, let me say that I had my doubts about the wording of the border poll. I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) not merely subsection (2) but subsection (6), which says:
The power to make orders under subsection (3) above includes power to vary or revoke a previous order and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
There will, therefore, be control by this House. All the matters my hon. Friend raised are important. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South will see the force of what I say, and I hope that public discussion will follow publication of the document.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I draw attention to subsection (7)? On reading that, I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can justify his speech this afternoon when he said that if the Convention came up with something which was not acceptable to this House, the guarantee in the Constitution Act would have to go by the board. The subsection makes it clear that the constitutional issue cannot be put before the people in any poll from the Convention—and is that not a good thing? One Labour Member said that the real burning issue was the settlement of the union. Surely that will come within the scope of the Convention. The subsection seems to undermine the Secretary of State's position this afternoon.

Mr. Rees: In the good book that I have written on this matter I carried the matter very much in mind. Subsection (7) is in for very good reasons. I decided that the subject matter of polls should be that which was relevant to the discussions which took place in the Convention. My argument, strongly based on that premise, is that there is now Section 1 of the Constitution Act. If there is a need for a poll on the link with the United Kingdom, there is the provision concerning the 10-year poll which cannot be held under the powers in this Bill. Powers would have to be sought from this House to carry that out. There are strong views about the Constitution Act. I have always felt that the North could not be pushed into the South. However, the question of the link with the United Kingdom is not one for Northern Ireland alone; it is for the whole of the United Kingdom and, not least, for this Parliament. For that reason, subsection (7) is carefully included. It provides that there can be referenda, but if there are to be referenda on the border or on the link with this country, they will require separate legislation in this House, because that is a matter not for the Convention but for the United Kingdom as a whole. While there may be a glint in the eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I can assure him that the subsection is included for very good reasons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We believe that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can retain their position, but we have had many assurances from this


House and they have all been torn up and destroyed—some of them overnight. However, we believe that the will of the people will eventually prevail. I am only pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman—he did not even take it up—that earlier, he said "If you come up with some suggestions that we do not accept, remember that your guarantee and finances will go." But the right hon. Gentleman could not do that under this Bill. As he has now admitted, he would have to introduce another Bill. He could not do it under a constitutional referendum. He would have to amend the Constitution Act 1973. That is the point I make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

TEMPORARY PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 24, at end insert:
'and no draft of an order shall be brought forward for approval under paragraph (a) above unless and until it has been approved by a Standing Committee established for the purpose'
The purpose is plain. It is to avoid the situation that we had under the previous direct rule provisions for dealing with Northern Ireland Orders in Council. There is no need for me to weary the Committee with the long story of the way the last Parliament dealt with the vast amount of legislation introduced by Order in Council, but I will recall to hon. Members briefly that a great deal of legislation—very much of it new and reforming—was on the stocks at Stormont when Stormont was suspended, and that legislation had to be brought before the House of Commons.
The Order in Council system of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation was instituted and proved highly unsatisfactory. It was all right for minor legislation but we had great difficulty, very often late at night, in dealing with highly complex and sometimes massive measures. For example, planning legislation and

complex planning procedures went through the House by Order in Council early one morning. What was wrong was not so much the brief time available for debate but the fact that there was no possibility of amending the legislation.
What does the right hon. Gentleman envisage as the kind of legislative programme expected during, say, the next six months? Is there a great deal of legislation awaiting us which would normally have gone to the Assembly? Does it include any matters of great substance? If there be anything like the volume we had during direct rule, or any legislation of comparable importance, there is great force in the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use the argument—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Not any more.

Captain Off: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because there is an excellent answer to that argument. The Secretary of State has been using the argument that it ill becomes those who opted out of the Assembly on detailed discussions of measures in the Assembly to tell the House of Commons now that we ought to have adequate means of debate. It is one thing for Members of the Assembly to decide that the Executive was improperly formed and to have nothing to do with it; it is quite another for hon. Members of this House, in which Northern Ireland is under-represented, to say, when the Secretary of State brings legislation forward, that their electorate should have proper democratic methods of moving and voting on amendments.
Even if the Secretary of State cannot accept the amendment as it stands—as I imagine will be the case—he has already said something on Second Reading, but in rather vague terms. When he was in opposition we got the same kind of vague assurances from the then Leader of the House and in the event they came to nothing. What we want from him is an assurance that when it is in mind that a draft Order in Council will be laid, some means will be found for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to move and vote on amendments which their constituents think important.
As time goes on, there is bound to be trouble about the legislation which went through this House by the Order in Council procedure. There is no opportunity


now, other than new legislation, to put that right. The right hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to this argument when in opposition. We used to operate together in deploring the way in which Northern Ireland business was treated. Now that the mantle of this responsibility has fallen upon him, I hope that he will show that same generosity of spirit.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Hon. Members will know what the order procedure and the urgent procedure entail. We are certainly not faced with the spate of legislation which arose from the Macrory Report, which required large numbers of detailed orders running into many pages. However, before the Summer Recess we shall need an appropriation measure so that Northern Ireland may have some money. I am in a difficult position, but it is in my mind to do this, when the Bill becomes law, by the urgency procedure. I should have thought that few would object to that laudable aim.
I am also of a mind shortly to deal with the question of social security payments during the strike, which the Executive was given permission to make under the 1926 Act. That matter needs to be tidied up and there will have to be an order on that. We certainly need to do something on the pensions increase. There is no great urgency on that, but it will need to be done by 1st January. There was a measure on its way through the Assembly. It was on exactly the same lines as the English Pensions (Increase) Act and dealt with the pensions of people who retired after 1st January. I am sure that the matter is of great urgency to them and I wish to do something about it.
Other legislation on, for example, extraterritorial offences and fair employment will arise. But there is not the great spate of legislation which was involved under the previous administration.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Shall we have a one-and-a-half hour debate on the appropriation measure?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rees: That would be a matter for the Leader of the House, but the procedures matter would necessitate only a one-and-a-half hour debate—and very quickly in time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I take it that the extra-territorial offences legislation arises from the Law Commission's recommendations and that a Bill will be presented.

Mr. Rees: I was asked about the legislation, not the form which it would take. It would require a Bill to be passed through the House of Commons.
I sympathise with and understand what is involved in the amendment, but to regulate the House's procedures through a Bill would be the wrong way to proceed. The matter is normally dealt with through the procedures of the House and the Committees which are set up, and it is much better that the matter should be left in that way. How it should be done is a matter for discussion. However, I feel sure that it would not be appropriate to set up a Committee at the fag end of this Session and that it should be left for later in the year. A marginal thing which could be done is that we could place the draft orders in the Library a little earlier so that people might be aware of what was coming through.
I shall look at the matter most sympathetically. I understand the nature of the problem. I have no idea what events will take place in the autumn, but we should look at the matter when the House returns from the Summer Recess. I do not take precisely the point about the voting procedure and the suggestion that the matter should be voted upon. It would be simple to arrange a Committee in which the vote was always lost. There is nothing clever about that. What matters is that the subject is discussed, and that is what moves me, rather than the question of the voting procedure.
I am aware that now that there is no Assembly meeting there must be appropriate means of discussion, but it is clear that many major measures will not go through in the form of Bills. That is the matter about which hon. Members are concerned.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I regard this Bill as a stalling measure. I may be incorrect in saying that, and the Government may be sincere in their intentions. Nevertheless, I cannot see another Assembly being created in Northern Ireland for a considerable time. For that reason, it is vitally important that an Ulster Standing Committee


should be created in the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State has said that there is not much Northern Ireland legislation waiting to come forward. The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill went through its Committee stage a short time ago. We have no equivalent measure in Northern Ireland. A Solicitors Bill was being debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it contained no provision for ombudsmen to investigate clients' complaints against solicitors. That measure should be brought quickly before the House, so that Northern Ireland has the benefit of legislation which is available in England. I will not go through the catalogue of legislation, but there is a measure dealing with children which, perhaps not in its present form but in a similar form, should be proceeded with.
It is totally unsatisfactory that we should have to face a long period during which we shall be unable to amend draft Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will place the orders in the Library beforehand, but he will not withdraw a draft order if any right hon. or hon. Member tells him that it is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What I said was that in the autumn we shall look seriously at this matter. In the short run, which is a matter of weeks, I shall see whether it is possible to put in the Library beforehand any orders which I lay. That will enable Northern Ireland Members to see what is contained in the orders.

Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I hope that he will consider machinery for the creation of an Ulster Standing Committee to discuss matters which are important to Northern Ireland. We are debating the creation of a constitution for the Province, but the health and prosperity of the Province depend upon legislation which affects Northern Ireland going through this House. We must make sure that reforming legislation brought before the House is debated upstairs.

Mr. Dalyell: It is exceedingly unsatisfactory that debates on Northern Ireland often take place late at night. I accept the Secretary of State's view that it is difficult to do anything at the fag end of

the Session, but if changes are to be made preparations have to be undertaken soon, and the sooner the Clerks are told that something may be possible the more likely it is to happen.
There is a serious case for a Northern Irish Grand Committee along the lines of the Scottish Grand Committee. Although there are many sneers at the Scottish Grand Committee, on the whole the procedure has few disadvantages and many merits. Irish Members will be aware of the complaints made by colleagues about the amount of the House's time that was taken up by Northern Ireland matters last week and again today. They fairly point out that there has been no proper debate on Kilbrandon, oil policy, reactor choice or the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary is conducting on membership of the EEC. If Ulster affairs are debated properly, the time will come when colleagues will say, understandably, that it is not fair on the rest of the House.
Furthermore, it will be of advantage to Ulster Members to have morning sessions upstairs, because they will then find that, in the nature of Press timings, they will be very much better reported both in evening newspapers and in the Ulster morning papers than they are reported late at night. The arguments about having a Grand Committee on Northern Irish affairs are very seductive.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had long experience when in opposition of dealing with Orders in Council. On many occasions he told the House how many Orders in Council were outstanding, how many pages they occupied, the number of clauses they contained and the late night sittings involved.
We in Northern Ireland would like to see Northern Irish business worked in the same way as business for any other part of the United Kingdom. We feel that there would be value in having a Standing Committee on Northern Ireland. We pressed the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and also the Leader of the House for such a Committee. We were promised time and again that this matter would be looked into and all parties would be consulted. No party from Northern Ireland was consulted, and


the proposal died. We never had a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland.
It worries Northern Ireland Members of Parliament that we are not able to amend Orders in Council. Although many aspects of orders may be favourable to Northern Ireland, there are matters on which we receive representations from constituents. The Minister concerned, no matter how favourable he may be towards us, can give us only nice, pious platitudes on Orders in Council, for they must go through as they stand. Therefore, we welcome what the Secretary of State has said and especially the fact that he will look into the matter. We are probably at the end of the present Parliament, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still take that view if he finds himself in his present office on our return or if he is then in opposition.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Since I have served on the Scottish Grand Committee, my natural affection for Scotland has increased. I can see the value of such a Committee, although at times I may have been regarded by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as an obstructionist in legislation affecting Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Molyneaux: It was most infuriating when we discussed Orders in Council on planning and on health and social services affecting Northern Ireland to realise that we could not alter by a dot or a comma anything in those measures. Unfortunately, a number of our criticisms expressed in those discussions were later proved to be justified. It looks as though at some time we shall have to find time for amending legislation, Therefore, it would be a step in the right direction if we could have a Committee of sorts and consultation prior to the laying of an order in its final shape.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) need not encourage Ulster Members to get to the House early in the morning to obtain Press publicity. They are well versed in that art without any need for a change in procedure. I shall take very seriously what has been said in this short discussion, whether in my present office

or in any later guise in carrying on my work for Northern Ireland. I will see that this debate is drawn to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House straight away.

9.0 p.m.

Captain Orr: Although the amendment would be in order if we chose to press it, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is not desirable to alter the procedures of the House by amendment to legislation.
The Secretary of State says that he does not propose to do anything for the fag end of this Session but that when we come back he intends to consider the two problems to which reference has been made: first, the discussion of legislation before it is drafted, and, secondly, the discussion of a draft before an order is laid. We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind some kind of procedure by which hon. Members representing Northern Ireland can be consulted about a draft and asked whether they wish the draft to be amended, and by which we can discuss amendments before the draft comes before the House. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I mean what I say. Of course I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but this is the view that I shall put forward.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of that, and in the hope that he will also convey to the Leader of the House our views about the times at which we discuss Orders in Council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONVENTION ON FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. West: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 35, leave out seventy-eight' and insert 'eighty-one'

The Chairman: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 5, in line 43, at end insert
'except that in the constituencies of Antrim North, Antrim South and Fermanagh and


South Tyrone one additional member shall be added in each case'.

Mr. West: The purpose of the amendment is to increase the representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly of the three constituencies referred to in Amendment No. 5.
I heard the arguments earlier about increased Northern Ireland representation in this House, and I heard the case put forward that it would mean calling in a boundary commission to readjust boundaries. However, the present case is one in which the boundaries do not have to be readjusted. There is an imbalance between the average representation of the other nine constituencies and that of the three to which the amendment refers.
Antrim, North has a representation of 14,881 constituents per Member. Antrim, South has 14,810 constituents per Member. Fermanagh and South Tyrone has 14,357 constituents per Member. Those figures compare with an average of 13,000 per Member in the other nine constituencies in Northern Ireland. We propose that one additional Member should be given to each of the three constituencies.
I understand that it is normal British practice to give a greater representation to rural areas where the geographical area is large and the population on the ground is sparse. Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which I represent in this House, is the most rural constituency in Northern Ireland. Geographically, it is the largest constituency. It stretches from Lough Neagh to Belleek. It is peculiar that this is the only constituency out of the 12 that requires a quota of over 9,000. Therefore, I propose that in Antrim, North and Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone the schedule should be amended to allow one additional Member for each constituency.

Mr. Molyneaux: When I questioned the previous Secretary of State about Antrim, South he said that we could not have more representatives because eight was the maximum number fixed for all the constituencies. I could never discover why he should have picked on that magical number. It seemed to be plucked out of the air for no apparent reason. The theory seemed to be that if we had

more than eight Members there might be a great deal of confusion. I should have thought that, with the peculiar set-up of proportional representation, the size of Antrim, South, with all the interests and different bodies represented that made for the maximum confusion, one more Member would not make all that much difference. Is there any valid reason why the ceiling should still apply after our experience of the last year?

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are coming back to an old theme. This matter was ventilated on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill. We went over the ground then.
It seems unfair that hon. Members should talk about Stormont's hands not being clean regarding the giving of fair representation to the people of Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made and refuted in this House. One hon. Gentleman opposite said that all the trouble and bloodshed in Northern Ireland was the result of the minority not being properly represented. The minority representation in the Assembly was exactly the same in percentage figures as in Stormont. A PR, STV or any other electoral system that is fair does not alter the situation one iota. It may strengthen the minority in a majority party, but it does not alter the population of the country. If it did, it would not be a fair electoral system. I do not think that hon. Members should say that Stormont was unfair when the hands of this Parliament have not been strictly clean regarding the number of Members returned to the Assembly.
My constituency deserves an additional Member. In the previous debate—I have HANSARD here, but I will not weary the Committee by repeating what I said—I pointed out that a minority representative would be returned for Antrim, North. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows that the results for Antrim. North showed that there would probably be two Members from his group returned if there were the proper number of seats. In Belfast, West only 11,865 votes are need to return the candidate. However, in Antrim, South another seat should be added on the ratio of the figures, which means that there should be nine representatives for Antrim, South. The same goes for Antrim, North. When we go to Fermanagh and South Tyrone the figures


show that there should be another representative there. Does the Committee want to be fair? If it does, it should agree to add three seats.
If this Committee wants minorities to be represented, the Convention should be enlarged to 100 members. That would provide a better opportunity for various people to be represented. It was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who suggested that there should be a larger Convention.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider why it is that North Antrim, South Antrim and Fermanagh and South Tyrone are under-represented in the Convention. There should be equality of representation, and it ill becomes hon. Members to make snide remarks about the old Stormont when they have here an opportunity to remedy the situation but are not prepared to put the matter right.
We urged this proposition on the previous Secretary of State, and he came up with the magical figure of eight Members. I do not know where he got the figure eight from. I thought that, according to the scriptures, seven was the number of perfection, but the previous Secretary of State evidently went beyond perfection.
I hope that people will not think that we are asking for three more seats in the sure knowledge that nobody else could win them. In my constituency, the extra seat would probably go to one of the minority parties. As I told the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of State during the previous debate, we are not interested in who will be returned to these seats. We are interested in getting fair play and fair representation.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter sympathetically tonight to see whether he can do something to help. If he makes this gesture, the people of Northern Ireland will see that he is prepared to give them equal representation in this Convention. We have to realise that this Convention will come up with plans for the future of our Province. I believe that everybody should be fairly represented on the Convention, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter favourably.

Mr. Kilfedder: I intervene briefly to support the amendment. It is a worthy amendment and the Secretary of State should accept it.
United Unionists from Northern Ireland are fighting for a fair representation for the people of the Province. What is more, we are virtually asking for extra representatives who will not belong to our party, so that in the Constitutional Convention there will be people who can voice opinions other than our own. It is to our credit that we are fighting for this extra representation, and I hope that the Secretary of State is not smiling, because I am—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is an appreciative smile.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Plaid Cymru might interpret it differently.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, this Convention will shape the future of our Province. He referred to the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) suggested that there should be 100 Members. In the previous debate I advocated a Convention of 150 members.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is paying us one of his rare visits. The hon. Gentleman has woken out of his sleep, and I am glad to see him here, asleep or not. When I advocate 150 members the hon. Gentleman is afraid that there will be elected to the Convention to represent the minority people who do not belong to that misnamed Social Democratic and Labour Party. They thought up a name that would take in everybody. He is afraid that the minority will be represented by people other than the SDLP.
9.15 p.m.
I tabled an amendment asking that the present membership should be doubled to 156. In reply I had a letter saying that the Chairman of Ways and Means regretted that he was unable to select my manuscript amendment. I am sorry that it was not accepted. I put it forward in all sincerity. People may think "Why have 150 people sitting in Stormont when there were only 52 in the old Stormont Parliament and 78 in the Assembly?" But we are not here providing for an


assembly. We are providing for a body of men and women who will, I trust, try to work out with good will an arrangement satisfactory to the majority and minority.
It would be worth the Government's spending extra money to give the salaries to the additional Members. We should then have not only the DUP, Vanguard Unionist and SDLP but representatives of other people who perhaps would not reach the present quota. It is sad that when we want everybody represented in the Convention we shall not have enough people there.
Unless every spectrum of opinion is represented in the Convention—people we may not approve of—they will afterwards say "We had no part in shaping that constitution. We reject it in the name of the people." That is why I put forward the notion that we should double the number of Members. As that amendment was cast aside by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I have pleasure in supporting the proposition that there should be three additional Members.

Mr. Flit: The Committee has just been subjected to the most ludicrous set of arguments we have ever heard. There is a sizeable minority of people in Northern Ireland who do not want increased representation in either the House of Commons or the Convention.
The amendment allegedly asks for an extra three Members of the Convention. We have been told of the magnanimity of the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) who says that the seats may go to his political opponents. Whether or not that happens, Northern Ireland must be the most expensive part of the United Kingdom to govern. If there were 150 Members, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would like, it would rise to 200, and there would be representatives of the North Down Harriers Association and the Crossmaglen Greyhound Association. People would be desperately seeking names to make them eligible for a seat.
We see the crocodile tears of the hon. Member for Down, North, who is desperately afraid that minorities in Northern Ireland may not be able to express their view on a Constitutional Convention. What has been happening these past 50 years? Under Unionism minorities in

Northern Ireland were trampled into the ground. Now all of a sudden we have this great change of heart and the hon. Member wants all the minorities, all the pigeon clubs and the darts clubs represented in this Convention. This amendment should be rejected with the contempt it deserves.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). This proposal was put forward in 1973 when the previous administration was introducing what is now the 1973 Constitution Act. In the constituency of the hon. Member 11,865 voters can return one Member to the Assembly or to the Convention, whereas it takes 14,394 voters to do so in South Antrim. For him to say that it is arrant nonsense for us to put forward this proposal is to fly in the face of his profession of civil rights for the people.
I said in 1973, before there was an Assembly, that the number of people returning Members to the Assembly, and now to the Convention, should be the same all over Northern Ireland. Why should my people in North Antrim not be entitled to another Member? Why should the hon. Gentleman's constituency have a special privilege? Is he so worried about the result of the election? It would be far better to have more people attending the Convention. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that as many people as possible should be at the conference table so that every possible view can be put. We are simply saying, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that you, Mr. Thomas, have ruled out his amendment and we cannot speak on it—

The Chairman: Order. I did not rule it out. I did not select it. There is a difference. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) spoke to his amendment as he was able, under the terms of this amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Thomas. I am glad that the way in which you ruled the amendment out was by saying that it was not selected. It lets us down a little easier but it is the same thing in the long run.
This is an important issue. The House of Commons has lectured the people of


Northern Ireland and we have been told that the Unionist Party in Stormont jackbooted the people and would not give them votes and so on. The same percentage was returned to the Assembly as to the old Stormont. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I say that Governments can change the electoral system, they can have PR, the list system, whatever system they like, but if people are in the majority they will come out as a majority.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has raised an important issue of cost. We see from paragraph 14 of the schedule that remuneration is to be at the rate of £2,500 a year. Those who come from Ulster must realise that if 78 people or 81 people, or whatever, are paid £2,500 a year for being Members of the Convention some people on this side of the water will begin to ask a few questions.
The Strathclyde region of Scotland, give or take a few thousand, has roughly the same population as Ulster. There are people on the Strathclyde council who will be spending as many hours doing council work—particularly if they hold convenorships of committees, and so on—as many of those who attend the Convention. Therefore, the question of costs is legitimate. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was quite fair in that on a previous occasion I made something of a meal of the fact that everyone ought to be represented. I would hope that the various shades of minority opinion are represented, and not least the men of violence on both sides, by those who are most congenial to them. Therefore, there is an argument on the other side as well.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Questions of the size of constituencies and under-representation and over-representation are not applicable merely to Northern Ireland. One of the first Bills that I had to pilot through the House in the 1966 Parliament was about a procedure arising out of a Boundary Commission report and based on the fact that those reports are often five years out of date in their population projections. Something then had to be done for a certain number of very large constituencies in this country. It did not happen to receive universal praise at the

time, but it was based on the fact that there were grave differences, as there are now, in the United Kingdom. This matter does not relate only to Northern Ireland. The Meriden constituency has an elecorate of about 100,000. The Brigg constituency has about 90,000. I think that there are constituencies of over 100,000 but I have not checked, so I do not offer any as examples. I see one hon. Member shaking his head. There are arguments based on the fact that the figures given in The Times book are always out of date. They are always based on the last Boundary Commission report, for obvious reasons.
First, therefore, there are differences in size, and there are differences between city constituencies and rural constituencies. With the suburban developments and new town developments in the United Kingdom as a whole there are bound to be differences in size. It would be impossible to achieve a situation in which that was not so.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) quite successfully sought to argue the case for 150 seats. I am not necessarily agreeing with his argument, but he put it forward. However, he then fell back on the 78 figure. Three is better than the extra 80 for which he argued originally. The extra three seats, while proportionately supporting his argument, do not add up to a great deal. I concede that if it were 30 or 40 extra seats it would be a different argument, but we are talking about three extra seats, for Antrim, North, Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Everyone has been talking about the Newfoundland Convention. In my historical searchings since we drew up the White Paper—I assure hon. Members that it was not before then—I was looking at another Convention held in Ireland in 1918. Strange as it may seem, it consisted of 78 members, so there may be some biblical connection, or something about the figures 7 and 8 or 8 and 7. But 78 it was.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Did the right hon. Gentleman read about the Hibernians?

Mr. Rees: I shall not go any further than saying that 78 seems to have some connection with Ireland.
The existing provision of the Bill is based, quite simply, on the existing provisions for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Assembly was created by the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and was then given 78 members, allocated between the 12 constituencies in the way set out in the Schedule to that Act. The Northern Ireland Assembly Act was separate from the main Bill, for what I regarded as very good reasons, because it was a suggestion that I put forward which the then Government accepted; but they both knit together to make the procedures for the Assembly. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which followed the Assembly Act, introduced a provision to enable the number of Members returned to the Assembly by each constituency to be amended. The procedure chosen was to permit the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland to make a supplementary report on the membership of the Assembly in the course of its normal examination of constituencies in Northern Ireland.
9.30 p.m.
The Boundary Commission's prime terms of reference are to advise on the boundaries for parliamentary constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of Commons. The commission makes reports on these boundaries for 10 to 15 years, which means that the next Westminster re-boundarying will be in about 1980. I know that from what happened under the previous administration, because I was interested in this matter and tabled a Question at that time.
As the boundaries on which the number of constituencies is based were the same, it was thought by the previous administration that the same Boundary Commission should be charged with the duty of considering, in the course of its normal consideration of boundaries, what changes, if any, were required to the representation in each constituency in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It would require a change in the Act whereby the Boundary Commission could do it in a number of years' time—say, by 1979 or 1980. Section 28(2) provided that changes in the numbers should be hooked on to the Boundary Commission changes which would be made by the Westminster Act.

Captain Orr: I am not a lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be misconceived. What Section 28(2) is dealing with is simply where the Boundary Commission is, in its normal course, dealing with the ordinary constituency boundaries for the House of Commons. This legislation is absolutely necessary. Obviously it would have to do something about the constituencies for the Assembly. It was a piece of legislation which was vital. It would not be affected if the Secretary of State simply took the power by Order in Council to alter the schedule to the Constitution Act. His argument about the difference in constituency sizes for the House of Commons is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Rees: I do not think that it is irrelevant. It is the same argument—that there are differences. In the Constitution Act the previous administration decided—I think rightly—that changes in the numbers should be considered when the Boundary Commission was looking at the size of constituencies in Northern Ireland. I admit that I could introduce legislation, no doubt in advance of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee which would look at it in detail later in the year.
I would not want—nor do I believe that any politician would want—to say to civil servants "Look at that constituency. Let us get an extra number there." It must be done outside the purview of politicians. We have always done it through boundary commissioners or, following reports of boundary commissions, through legislation.
There used to be a separate Northern Ireland Boundary Commission. If the amendment were accepted, I do not believe that there could be an election for about a year, because I would put all the seats in Northern Ireland up to the Boundary Commissioners. Not only Antrim, North and Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone are affected. It is not my job as Secretary of State to alter the number of seats in Northern Ireland; that is the job of the Boundary Commissioners. If the amendment is passed, it will delay elections even more.

Captain Orr: The Secretary of State is making a very odd argument. He is saying that because the Boundary Commission has power to make changes, when


constituency boundaries are being redrawn the Boundary Commission should amend the number of Members in the schedule, and that that has always been done by the Boundary Commission. He is saying that in his opinion that situation should continue. Was the schedule originally drawn up by the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Rees: In the first place it was drawn up by the Boundary Commission—that is, the figure of 78—in the spirit of the Act. This is not a job for me. If I were to start on it, others would be asking for this representation. The matter is best left to the commission.

Captain Orr: I can see certain pragmatic reasons, but no reason in law or logic, why the right hon. Gentleman should go to the Boundary Commission to make these minor changes. I do not think that his arguments are good, and it appears to me that the case made by my hon. Friends has been made in equity. I cannot hear any complaints from anywhere else, and I would have thought that the change could easily be made by administrative action. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to press the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has played around with the figure of 78 as though it came out of the air. However, there were 52 seats in the old Parliament and 26 seats in the Senate. The two were added together, which is why we now have 78 seats. The decision to divide Northern Ireland into 78 seats was made not by the Boundary Commission but arbitrarily by the Secretary of State. We are now asking whether this Parliament can do something to give fairer representation. Should not this Parliament be leading the way?

Mr. Rees: Arbitrary though that decision may have been, it would now be wrong for another Secretary of State to take another arbitrary decision. The decision should go through the Boundary Commission and not be applied just to the three constituencies that have been mentioned.
If the amendment were to be pressed successfully, it has been calculated that the election could not take place for

more than a year. Perhaps that is what hon. Gentlemen want.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would be an arbitrary decision, but he would be looking at the facts. The previous Secretary of State had no regard for anything but the Senate and the Northern Ireland Parliament. He added the total seats together and came up with the figure of 78. We said earlier that that should be looked at. It was discovered that South Antrim, North Antrim and Fermanagh and South Tyrone had too many electors. If the House carried the amendment tonight, the Boundary Commission would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Dalyell: After all the odium that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) went through in the mid-1960s and the unjust attacks upon them of fudging the Boundary Commission, I can well understand that my right hon. Friend is sensitive on this issue. I should like to ask a factual question. Is it the Boundary Commission that makes these decisions? Is there any difference between the Boundary Commission operating on the Convention, which we have been led to believe is of a temporary nature, and the Boundary Commission operating in circumstances that are far more permanent? I have sat here for the last 10 minutes a little alarmed about another matter. Here we are talking about things that are far more permanent than we were led to believe three or four hours ago. That is the fear that I have.

Mr. Molyneaux: I repeat what I said last week, that I have always respected the fairness of the Secretary of State. I believe that he acts in what he believes are the best interests in Northern Ireland, but, again, he has misinterpreted Section 28(2). It seems to me that the provision at the end of that subsection is simply a consequential action following the normal course of the Boundary Commission's activities in periodic revision of boundaries, and that when it simply redraws constituency boundaries it then introduces a supplementary report dealing with the Northern Ireland Assembly representation. It is as simple as that. But it does not seem to say anywhere that the Secretary of State shall not, on the basis of the existing constituency


boundaries, vary representation in the Assembly or the Convention.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State said that I had abandoned my claim for 150 seats and was supporting a claim for three. Of course, I am in no position to press the Committee to a Division on 150. I still believe that 150 is the right figure, and I was only hoping that the Secretary of State, wishing to take in a wide stretch of opinion, would accept my recommendation. The other point I wish to make is that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has left after his brief intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend simply confirm whether this is a question for the Boundary Commission or for the Secretary of State?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: All I am saying is that Section 28(2) of the Constitution Act hooks the matter on to the Boundary Comission, and subsection (3) says that
The recommendations in a supplementary report shall not be such as substantially to alter the number of members specified in section 1(1) of the said Act of 1973 (total number of members of Assembly); and those recommendations shall be such as to secure, so far as practicable, that the ratio of the electorate of each constituency to the number of members to be returned by that constituency is the same in every constituency.
I believe that the previous Government were right. They took their decision on 78 and that in future the matter should be handled by the Boundary Commissioners. If I were to take this matter

on I could not do it simply for three seats, because there are 12 constituencies. I realise that the leader of the official Unionists is keen that the Secretary of State shall never get involved in these things but that they should be left to an independent person. I cannot be independent. That is not my rôle in terms of dealing with these matters. I must advise the House that these questions should be left to the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the belief that these matters should be left to the Boundary Commission and not interfered with parliamentarily. We all remember very well what happened in the 1965–70 revision. It happened to benefit me personally very much, but it was a most unfortunate piece of gerrymandering by time rather than by district. While I understand the arguments that have been put from my side of the Committee, I welcome the principle of the Secretary of State not deciding the number of seats as more important, and therefore the slight mathematical unfairness, which I concede exists, seems to be less important than having the Secretary of State follow the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 131.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Winterton, Nicholas
McCusker, H.



Bradford, Rev. R.
Paisley, Rev. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Mr. James Molyneaux and


Dunlop, John
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Capt. L. P. S. Orr.


Fairgrieve, Russell
West, Rt. Hn. Harry



Kilfedder, James A.






NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Ennals. David


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Atkins, Ronald
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas
Evans, John (Newton)


Bates, Alf
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)


Beith, A. J.
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Dalyell, Tam
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Ford, Ben


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dormand, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
George, Bruce


Clemitson, Ivor
Eadie, Alex
Graham, Ted


Cocks, Michael
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Coleman, Donald
English, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)




Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, Jonn
Stallard, A. W.


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, [...]chen)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Tomlinson, John


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ovenden, John
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamborn, Harry
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Rose, Paul B.
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Golding and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William
Mr. Walter Johnson.


Madden, M. O. F.
Snape, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 36, at end insert:
'and
(c) Members of the House of Commons for constituencies in Northern Ireland'.
The amendment speaks for itself. It simply proposes that Members of the House of Commons who represent Northern Ireland constituencies should automatically be members of the Convention.
It appears that the Secretary of State will opt out. We have had considerable discussion about the chairmanship of the Convention and it seems that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in the chair. But it is important to the Convention that it should contain people with experience of the House of Commons and who have views about what might or might not be acceptable to the House of Commons in order to advise the Convention.
We who represent Northern Ireland constituencies fit into both categories. We are the most freshly elected people in Northern Ireland. In addition, some of us have considerable experience of the House of Commons. Even those who have recently become Members of the House of Commons have, as a result of our debates here, been able to learn something about it and about what might be acceptable to the House of Commons. It would be sensible if people who represented Northern Ireland constituencies had the right to attend the Convention,

to listen to the arguments and to give the Convention advice from time to time.

Mr. Beith: The experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is well known and well respected, but I find it difficult to follow his argument. If he felt the need for what he proposes, he could stand for election to the Convention and might be elected. But it would be far from desirable to add to the Convention a block of Members who, in their representation, were very much less proportional than the Convention would be. It would, in effect, distort the representation of the Convention if a block of Members from the House of Commons were added to it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a point which was different from the point of the amendment when he suggested that it might be possible for Members of the House of Commons who have an obvious interest in the matter under discussion to attend the Convention but not to be Members of it. It is difficult to understand the case simply for adding a group of 12 Members, elected under the Westminster system, to the proportionally-elected Convention.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I wish to reply to the amendment in the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) moved it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would like Members of the


House of Commons to be in the Convention so that they could advise the Convention about what would be acceptable to the House of Commons. We have given the parameters in the White Paper, but the alternative has already been put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith): namely, that if the people of Northern Ireland felt that it would be of advantage for Members of the House of Commons to advise the Convention they could elect such Members as offered themselves for election to the Convention where they would be able to make constructive contributions.
That would have the advantage of allowing them to give advice and to attend the debates and, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, it would not distort the representation of the Convention, which would be directly answerable to the Northern Ireland electorate. The great thing about adopting that solution is that Parliament would not tell the electorate of Northern Ireland who should represent them in the Convention, even to a moderate degree; the people of Northern Ireland would decide that for themselves.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I find it hard to believe that the spokesman for the Liberal Party should be so much against the amendment, because his Leader put it forward when we discussed the Northern Ireland Assembly—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to re port Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Northern Ireland Bill, the Policing of Airports Bill, the Railways Bill and the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Johnson.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know whether this is the first time that the Minister of State has been at the Dispatch Box, but I congratulate him on his appointment to office. I hope to meet him in Stormont Castle because I have many constituency problems for him.
The Members of the Convention will not be answerable to their constituencies because they will not be seeking further election, whereas Members of this Parliament have to resubmit themselves to their constituents who would be able to decide whether or not their Members adequately represented them. I understand that when the Convention finishes its work it ends and its membership is cancelled.

Captain Orr: In the light of the discussion we have had, and, as it is obvious that the Minister has not been in the least impressed by my comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 37, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert:
'electors of Northern Ireland under a list system of proportional representation'.
I need not detail the House long in arguing this case because I have given the details of it on a previous occasion.
I am wholly in favour of the principle of the Bill. In my last speech on this subject I said that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would do what he is doing; namely, set up a body in Northern Ireland with which to consult, so that the people of Northern Ireland through their representatives could give advice and ultimately decide how they wanted the Province to be run. That provision is in the Bill, and that is why I did not speak in the Second Reading debate.
I also said that I believed that the election should be under a list system of proportional representation, because that is a fair system, but that provision is not included in the Bill. Even Liberal Members privately, not publicly, are coming to realise that the single transferable vote system is not a proportional representation system. The result of the last election in the Republic proves that. The vote for Fianna Fail went up to 51 per cent. on first preference and Fianna Fail lost. That illustrates the proportionality of the system. I accept that theoretically the STV system would be proportional if all the constituencies were abolished and the system were extended to the whole of Northern Ireland, but it would still be a silly system because one ends up by supporting the man in the middle.
Since that time I have asked the leaders of all political groups in Northern Ireland, whether elected or not, for their opinion. I have not had a reply from them all, but I understand there is a substantial measure of agreement that there should be a proportional representation system of this type.
It is perhaps worth noting that the only party with a substantial representation which has written to me objecting to this system is the Alliance Party, and

I have a letter from Mr. Napier to that effect. This does not surprise me, because if somebody is being under-represented in due proportion—in this case perhaps the extremist parties—somebody else must be over-represented. It is most likely to be the Alliance Party, which strongly objects to the change.
I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted every party in Northern Ireland, as I did, what were their views, and whether he found it as easy as the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said it would be to convert to proportional representation. It could be better if we had a system that represented in exact proportion to its votes every view in Northern Leland rather than the present system, which is not a proportional representation system.

Mr. Beith: We all recognise the erudition of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in the matter of proportional representation. We also sympathise with his present discomfort and hope that he will soon recover. We have all experienced over a period of time the extent to which the hon. Gentleman's purity of thought on matters of proportional representation may seem to confuse the issue. The hon. Gentleman uses the term "proportional representation" most carefully and has mentioned the list system; but he fails to recognise that proportional representation is relative in the extent to which it is provided in the various systems, and that the single transferable vote system provides a high degree of relative proportionality and combines with it a constituency link—in other words, the ability of Members to represent constituencies for each of which there is a group of Members. The constituency link is often advanced as the major feature of our own traditional system. It is about the only thing one can say in its favour, but it certainly represents an argument for a system with a high degree of proportionality which preserves an element of constituency contact for a Member. It can be argued that the Constitutional Convention has not so great a need for the constituency link as has a permanent assembly dealing with administrative matters. But in the Northern Ireland situation, this advantage, having


been brought to the Assembly elections, it is now a system to which people have become accustomed. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to say how quickly Northern Ireland had accustomed itself to the STV system and how smoothly the election had proceeded.
The list system has the strong disadvantage that it tends to place power in the hands of the party organisations which draw up the lists and so limits the ability of the electors to choose between the various elements. Clearly that was a choice exercised in the election to the Assembly. In that case, the STV system enabled electors to choose certain of the Unionists before them, for example, in preference to some of the others. At those elections certain individuals lost and certain others polled very well as a result of their reputations.
The STV system in Northern Ireland has shown that it has many advantages. In the Assembly elections it represented accurately the proportions cast in the first preference votes. I find no argument for changing it at this stage.

Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was right not to go into the details of his amendment, because I had already taken the trouble to read the speech that he made on 16th April during our debates on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill and made myself conversant with the general drift of his arguments.
There is one difference between this amendment and the one that my hon. Friend moved last year. His amendment last year was designed to give the benefits of the list system plus an opportunity to choose an individual candidate. On this occasion, he has decided to go for the list system without saying that there should be an opportunity to pick a particular candidate. In the circumstances, that might be regarded as a defect in terms of the selection that an elector may exercise, although it means greater simplicity in the electoral process.
The fundamental argument for the single transferable vote is that recently there have been changes in Northern Ireland from time to time. We selected the process of the single transferable vote

for the Assembly elections. That operated for the last Assembly elections. Unless there were very powerful arguments against it, we believe that it would be wrong at this stage to remove that system and to adopt a list system, however mathematically attractive it might be.
For that reason, we wish to stick mainly to the STV. The proposal to change it might delay the opportunity to hold elections and would possibly take up some further legislative time. I do not think that we can rush into a matter like this without consultations in the Northern Ireland community generally.
For all those reasons, we prefer to stick to the single transferable vote. In saying that, I am probably not surprising my hon. Friend, but those are the arguments on which we base our attitude.

Mr. English: I do not think that the effect of my amendment is that which my hon. Friend has described. If it is, that was not my intention. By the amendment, I intended merely to direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—in making the various regulations which we always have to have in order to set up an electoral system—to create a list system. In trying to keep my remarks brief, it may be that I did not explain that I had not changed my views, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
In some countries where list systems exist, they have the highly centralised system which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed took as the extreme example. But it is possible, and common in the more democratic countries, to have a list system in which the voter is allowed to vote, apart from the party, for a person on the party list, so putting the list in order and so deciding who gets elected and who does not.
Such a system cannot operate readily in very large countries. But we are not discussing a very large country. In practice, an enormous number of people in Northern Ireland are familiar with their politicians all over the Province, just as in Israel or in the Netherlands people are in close communities where that is possible. It was not my intention to deprive the voter of his choice of candidate as well as party. I hope that is clear.
10.15 p.m.
I turn now to the remainder of my hon. Friend's remarks. I made this point to the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who went far towards saying that it was not his desire that we did not have a list system. I made the point again last year, as my hon. Friend said, and I made it again a few weeks ago in the first debate on this subject in this Parliament. Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I suggest that if he looks at the figures he will see that the real extremists in Northern Ireland would have gained one seat apiece under a truly proportional system.

Mr. Beith: With 1·8 per cent. of the votes?

Mr. English: With 1·8 per cent. of the votes and 78 seats they would clearly have gained a seat. Therefore, they would have had one person capable of expressing their view by legal means. That is the point. That is partly what is not happening. We all see the dangers of over-representing the moderates, which is what the STV system is inclined to do, and of under-representing the extremists by legal means. The dangers are obvious. People in that situation will take extralegal means if they have no legal means of expressing their view.
It is also true that in Westminster we get a false impression about who is governing Northern Ireland. That is a situation that we have only recently seen with the fall of the Executive. I will not go into detail. I merely wanted to answer that point. I regret my hon. Friend's decision.
Nevertheless, having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 3, after 'instrument', insert 'but such date shall not be later than 31st December 1974'.
It is vital that Northern Ireland has the Convention brought into being as quickly as possible. The people of Northern

Ireland for the past 50 years or more have had recourse to a Parliament and an Assembly, and the absence of representatives in a devolved Parliament or Assembly is a great psychological blow at this time.
I should like to expand the argument by drawing attention to two important factors. The first is the need to control and assist local government by an assembly. That assembly would be brought into being very soon if we could have our Convention quickly. The assembly is needed to control and assist local government. At present we have two Ministers of State, two Under-Secretaries and a Secretary of State who cannot possibly cope with all the work that is being brought to their attention.
I will illustrate the situation by giving one or two examples. There is a tremendous need to stimulate interest in the great housing problem in Northern Ireland and to produce some concrete results in terms of community amenities. This is absent, and we believe that the sooner there is a Convention that will lead to an assembly the sooner will local government be controlled and assisted to produce these dire needs and necessities.
The second reason for wanting the Convention to be brought into being immediately and to produce a new legislative body as quickly as possible is the need for security. The present political vacuum affords the subversives tremendous opportunities. They see this vacuum as an expression of the weakness, confusion and impotence both of this Parliament and of any proposed assembly in Northern Ireland.
The Convention will be much concerned with security problems. It must tackle immediately the great problems of policing, of the UDR and of the proposed Home Guard. All these security matters must be discussed urgently, and this can be done only if the Convention is brought into being as rapidly as possible.
Whether one likes it or not, the Convention will have to consider the dreadful problem of the bomber in Belfast and other rural towns. The absence of a Convention projects the feeling of weakness, of confusion and of impotence, and it seems to me that we must quickly dispel these misconceptions. The Convention will need to consider not only


policing, the UDR and the Home Guard, but the return of capital punishment for those who are guilty of maiming or killing through the planting of bombs. Only by the Convention dealing immediately with security and by the assembly that will follow pursuing the matter can we get across to the subversives in Northern Ireland that their tactics will never pay.
I believe that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, however that Parliament expresses itself, will be impatient to come to terms with terrorism because of the social and economic problems and because of the security issues, but we must stress that social and economic stability is completely dependent upon successful security measures. These measures are needed immediately, and only the immediate setting up of the Convention will satisfy the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us to understand earlier in the day that some feeling had been expressed that perhaps it would not be a good idea to hold the elections in the immediate future. A number of us believe that there is every reason for holding them as soon as possible, so that the situation should not fester. I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State convincing reasons why we should not go ahead at the earliest possible moment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Just in case the Minister of State might think that there was any slacking by the United Ulster Unionists about the call for an election, I should like to put the record straight. The elected representatives to this House, the United Ulster Unionists, are one in this matter.
It is also true that, while the right hon. Gentleman may have heard representations from some people connected with the Ulster Workers Council, the council as a body has called for an immediate General Election, and it has also said that it was the purpose of its strike to have an election as soon as possible.
The amendment leaves it until the end of the year. That is reasonable. Certain spadework has to be done. If people want to get their political organisations going, well and good, but we are saying that the election must be this year. I agree with the hon. Member for West

Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it should be as soon as possible, for as soon as the people have the opportunity to send their spokesmen to the Convention, and as soon as the Convention can get under way, the vacuum will have been filled in a measure. I think that the Minister will agree that it would be better to have the talks as soon as possible.
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland feel that there should be elections. The Minister of State would be doing a service to the country by heeding the voice of the elected representatives and giving us an assurance that the elections will be held before the end of the year. I know that there are difficulties, with an election to this House pending. Some people may say that it would be a bad thing to have an election in Northern Ireland before the election here. I am not sure about that. After an election in Northern Ireland, the parties could go to the country and say "The Northern Ireland people are down to business around the conference table at least to try to find a constitution for themselves."
The Secretary of State for Defence has said publicly that the election must probably be early in October. The Government are probably saying that if that is so the Northern Ireland elections must be later, but we are asking for them before the end of the year, which is reasonable. We would not ask the right hon. Gentleman to call them on Christmas Day.
Some of the parties whose representatives were elected to the Assembly were not invited to the Oxford conference. They would have refused anyway, but they did not have the opportunity. Representatives of a foreign country were present, a country which is now taking action against the Government here on allegations of torture, and which has as its chief witness the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). How can he reconcile that with the oath of allegiance he took when he entered the House? How can he give evidence against this Government and this Parliament on behalf of a foreign country? However. I shall not stress that matter tonight.
We need an election, and we are still calling for one, although we are not at Stormont Castle every day knocking on the door about the matter. We are knocking at the door on other matters vital


to our constituents. We are still united, and I believe that we speak for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland I am sure that the Minister will pay attention to this call.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: It will be recalled that on Second Reading I was anxious to get an undertaking from the Minister of State that the Convention, once established, would be able to report as soon as possible. It is right that I should express my view that we think that this amendment is unrealistic. In the present political climate no one knows what the position may be towards the autumn.
The months of August and September would obviously be unrealistic months in which to hold the election for the Convention, even if all the procedures could be set up in that time. It would be wrong in those circumstances to attempt to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be in the autumn. It would also be wrong to impose upon Northern Ireland what might well be two elections within six weeks or two months. For those reasons I say that it would be wrong for the discretion of the Secretary of State to be fettered in the way proposed.

Mr. Orme: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) for his kind words. He has put his finger on the crucial point. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from holding elections before 31st December. We have not adopted this procedure so that we can say that there will not be elections for two years or some such time. As soon as elections can be held in what we consider to be unfettered conditions they will be held. We have to take into account the problems of a possible Westminster General Election and the effects of that upon the electorate in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) moved the amendment in a reasonable way but strayed on to the security situation and said that the Convention ought to be discussing that issue. I do not need to remind him that the responsibility for security in all its aspects rests with the Westminster Government. That is not the business of the Convention at this stage.

Captain Orr: If the Minister intends that the Convention should be reasonably unfettered it would surely be possible for those in the Convention, when it meets to argue that control of the police and of internal security ought to rest with whatever institution is set up in the future. In that respect internal security could reasonably be discussed.

Mr. Orme: If the hon. and gallant Members wants me to reiterate the words of my right hon. Friend, that no doubt the policing of Northern Ireland will be discussed in the Assembly, I will gladly do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State told us, in discussing the White Paper, that the matter of policing would certainly be discussed in the Convention.

Mr. Orme: I think the hon. Member is misinterpreting the situation. I was dealing with a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). My right hon. Friend said the Convention would not necessarily, by prescription, discuss these matters, but it would not be prevented from doing so. If members of the Convention wanted to discuss such matters it would be within their rights to do so.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised the problem of the duties which the Government will have during temporary direct rule. He referred to the two crucial issues of housing, which will be the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and community relations, which will be the responsibility of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary.
I cannot see how the Convention affects these issues. It will not be there to discuss these matters. Rather it will discuss the political issues. It will be trying to arrive at proposals for a new form of government in Northern Ireland which will encompass these issues. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends or members of his party are elected to the Convention, they will be responsible for discussing the specific political issues for which the terms of the Convention have been drawn up. That will not prevent members of the Convention being able to operate and represent their constituents in a way which would be acceptable to this Parliament and Government.

Mr. Bradford: My point was that it was important to get the Convention under way because we cannot have the legislative body, be it a Parliament or an Assembly, until the Convention has successfully concluded. In a debate in 1973 on the then proposed constitution, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that it was vital that the Assembly in Northern Ireland should have control over local government even if it meant executive control being postponed for some time. I represent a very largely residential constituency. It contains some very palatial homes, but also many dreadful housing conditions, and I am thinking particularly about that problem. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not begin the Convention and successfully conclude it and bring into being a legislative assembly of some kind these deplorable problems will not be tackled as expeditiously as they ought to be?

Mr. Orme: We welcome the hon. Gentleman's pressure for speed in getting some form of legislative assembly established in which these matters can be discussed. But I assure him that if he makes representations to the appropriate Ministers who will be operating under the present Government in the intermediate period, matters raised will be looked at urgently and sympathetically. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's idea—it is also the Government's idea—that the Convention and temporary direct rule should not operate indefinitely, and that we can move forward to some form of government in Northern Ireland which is acceptable.
For the reasons I have given, I ask the Committee to accept that to stipulate a date would tie any Government down to a position that was completely unacceptable. In those circumstances I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I shall have to ask the Committee to reject it.

Captain Orr: I understand the point about tying the hands of the Secretary of State. In normal circumstances one would not have wished to do so. I think that we would have said that the Secretary of State's intention was to have the elections to the Convention as soon as was reasonably practicable. One would have accepted that. The trouble—and the

reason for the amendment—is that we have heard noises from Government sources which suggest that the election might be postponed not by questions concerning the possibility of an election to the House of Commons or for reasons of security or otherwise but because of the mistaken view that there is a large body of opinion in Ulster which would prefer the elections to be postponed.
I cannot emphasise too strongly what has been said by my hon. Friends, who, after all, are the elected representatives from Northern Ireland. We are all agreed that we represent the views of the majority of our constituents when we say that delay is not to be encouraged. I do not tie the Secretary of State to a date, but there is nothing to be gained from inordinate delay.
We have heard it suggested that members of the prorogued Assembly might retrieve their fortunes if there were delay. That is a totally mistaken hope. The Secretary of State would be gravely mistaken to believe that there will be any weakening in the views of the Ulster people about the matters on which they expressed their opinions in elections to this House and in subsequent actions, such as the constitutional stoppage. If Ministers think that in some strange way, by some strange kind of metabolism, the Ulster people will change their views, they are mistaken.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put his views very fairly. It is only right that I should say from whom we have had representations. They have come from the Ulster Workers Council—not all of them—Mr. Brian Faulkner and the Alliance Party. Hon. Members may smile, but in a democratic society all views must be heard. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend accepts those views. The point is that the view that elections should be held almost immediately is not unanimous. In fact, we are being asked by some people to postpone the elections for so long that that request is completely unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, we should not have embarked upon this course if we were not to have elections in the forseeable future.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for making plain what he had in mind. We


do not object to his having consultations with the people he has mentioned. What we are asking is that the views of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland should prevail.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not obvious that when everything is in a state of flux we should have an election as quickly as possible so that the politicians do not get into a rut and do not take up a stand from which they cannot shift? Delaying elections means that politicians throughout the Province—and I am not mentioning parties—could easily take positions from which it would subsequently be difficult to move.

Captain On: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. There is every argument for having elections to the Convention as soon as possible. I understand that the Minister should consult others. Naturally, people who are associated with policies that have plainly failed—

Mr. Orme: Not all of them.

Captain Off: —perhaps not all of them—predictably will say "Give us a little longer and we shall retrieve it all". But it is a forlorn hope and it would be absolutely wrong for the Secretary of State to leave the Province without any form of top tier of local government, without any hope of a final constitutional settlement and with further uncertainty, for patience would fail, with the danger that people would take up more and more rigid attitudes. There is everything to be said in wisdom for proceeding reasonably soon with the election. I do not want desperately to tie the Secretary of State to the date proposed, but I should like some assurance before we leave the matter that it is not his intention simply to pospone the election until those people who have been associated with policies that have failed have time to regroup their forces in some kind of forlorn hope.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Orme: No date is at the moment in my right hon. Friend's mind. He will not commit himself to a date either before or after 31st December.

Captain Orr: That is an uncompromising attitude. I was endeavouring to be helpful to the Minister of State. I was

trying to get him off the hook. He might have said that it was proposed to have the election as soon as reasonably possible. We do not want the Secretary of State to commit himself to a particular date, but he could have given the assurance I sought. If he will not give it I cannot advise my hon. Friends to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Orme: As always in matters of this sort my right hon. Friend will be reasonable, but he cannot be committed to a date.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We want to convert him.

Amendment negatived.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 20, at end insert:
6A. Provisions for by-elections to the convention shall be the same as would apply for the Northern Ireland Assembly".
The Bill makes no provision for a by-election to the Convention. The amendment provides for a by-election on the same basis as would apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
My constituency has suffered already from under-representation in the Assembly. There was a sad calamity concerning our Assembly representative, Mr. McCarthy from the town of Ballymena. Before the Assembly met he had a fatal accident. The Government of the day made no provision by a by-election. It was scandalous that this House took no action to allow the people of Antrim, North to elect another representative. The then Secretary of State acted that way because he knew that he would not like the result of the election. He knew that the result would go against him. It is ridiculous for a Minister to take that line. Some hon. Members in this House may not like the outcome of the new elections, but that is the democratic system and we shall have to agree with it. Many are rejected at the polls, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many a good man is not elected, but he still has his principles.
The Secretary of State should make some provision in this respect. We live in a day when assassinations take place in our land. If my information is right, in the next few months there could be political assassinations. That is why some of us feel that the leaders of the parties


should have proper personal security. I am alarmed at the fact that while some members of parties in Northern Ireland have been given heavy security others whose homes have been threatened and attacked have not been given adequate security. This perhaps is a matter to be dealt with on another day.
I feel that some provision should be made if because of death a seat is left vacant. Somebody should be given the opportunity to take that place so that there is somebody to speak on behalf of the people. There are forces in Northern Ireland which would like to remove certain voices from the Convention. It would be an encouragement and an incentive to those people if they knew that if they removed somebody from the seat that place would not be filled. The Secretary of State has a duty to make provision on this important matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised an important point. It would be idle of me to pretend that I have not given a great deal of thought to it. I am not unaware of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of security. I do not decide who receives security protection in Northern Ireland or in this part of the United Kingdom; it is a matter for the security authorities. The fact that one has to consider these matters makes one aware of what could or could not happen. Perhaps we should leave the matter there. I have discovered in my security responsibilities that the more publicity given to something the more is the chance of something happening.
Let me seek to explain why I have left the matter as it is at present. Let me make clear that I have not taken the course because I did not wish there to be by-elections. We are not dealing with an assembly with a four-year life. We are dealing with a much shorter-term body; it is a short-term Convention. Of course, the reason for somebody being elected matters, but when one person is missing the matter will not be determined on a numerical basis.
I accept that there may be problems, given the situation in Northern Ireland, if people are killed because of their political views. I take the point about the period following the Convention. I do

not believe that it will all be done speedily, but if it is not done on a relatively short-term basis it will show that weaknesses have arisen in the Convention. I do not think that it will go on a long time: the people of Northern Ireland will come to terms with each other, I believe, in a short period.
The Bill deliberately excludes by-elections, and I stand by that. It will be done on the PR basis. The original Act provided for 90 days, and here we shall have six months. The Amendment could lead to the type of discussion which I would prefer to be left to a referendum if that were necessary. If there were problems as a result of death which needed the attention of the House, it would be given, and I believe that it is best left like that. This is a macabre subject. There are hon. Members with whose political views I profoundly disagree, but none of us wants it to go that way. However, those who live in Northern Ireland know that it can go that way.
If I were given this freedom of action. I would take such circumstances as have been mentioned into account, if necessary, although the body concerned was a convention. I am talking of the problems which would arise if a number of people were affected. I will look at these matters in a reasonable way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my word for that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Secretary of State for those words. The amendment goes right to the stark reality of the Northern Ireland situation. It is as well for the Committee to know what the political climate might be. Many people would not want the Convention to succeed; they would not want the Ulster people to settle the Ulster problem.
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's words in the spirit in which he uttered them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLICING OF AIRPORTS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

DESIGNATED AIRPORTS

11 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out from "state" to "in" in line 8 and insert
shall by order designate for the purposes of this Act all aerodromes used for the purpose of civil aviation unless. following inspection of the arrangements made for policing any aerodrome, he is satisfied that the policing of that aerodrome need not".
Essentially, the amendment proposes a change of emphasis. The clause as it stands permits the Government to put the security of airports under the charge of the regular police if they believe that to be necessary in the interests of the prevention of crime. The amendment would go further and would require the Government to put United Kingdom airports under the regular police unless they believed the security to be adequate. It would require the inspection of security arrangements at airports. We believe that in practice it would bring more airports under the charge of the regular police.
It is fair to say that this amendment reflects the division that there is between the Government and the Opposition in the passage of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the only airport they intend to bring under the regular police is Heathrow, where the Metropolitan Police will be given the task. We entirely support that policy, but we believe that there is an urgent case for applying the Bill to other airports in the United Kingdom. Thus, I think there is a real difference between the two sides.
The first reason for the amendment is that the threat of terrorism is not confined to one area of the United Kingdom or to one airport. It is a national problem, and the bomb outrages last night at Birmingham and Manchester have underlined this fact. These were not the first bomb incidents to have taken place in these cities, nor was it the first time that terrorists have struck in major cities outside

London. The fact must be faced that a terrorist may as easily strike in a major city in the Midlands or the North as in the capital.
Unfortunately, what can happen in our provincial city centres can also happen in our provincial airports. Birmingham and Manchester also have their airports, which could become terrorist targets, and they are not the only provincial airports we have. There are the remaining British Airports Authority airports like Gatwick, with a major international airport role, Stansted and the two Scottish airports at Prestwick and Edinburgh. All those airports share common features. They are possible terrorist targets. They are not under the charge of the regular police and there are no plans to change their policing arrangements.
No one wants to be alarmist about the terrorist threat, but it is essential that we should seek to understand the risk. Terrorists, being what they are—a cowardly breed—will strike at what they regard as the softest target. It is at least possible that if security at Heathrow is improved they will transfer their attentions to other airports, and it is that risk that we should guard against.
The second argument we would advance for the amendment is about the quality of policing. At present the policing of our airports is in the hands of forces outside the normal bloodstream of the regular police. The biggest of these forces is the British Airports Authority police, while some of the municipal airports have their own small forces. Let us take the British Airports Authority police. The Government have announced their intention to take those members of that force who now serve at Heathrow into the Metropolitan Police. That means that no fewer than 380 out of a total strength of 460 will become regular policemen in the Metropolitan Police. This reduces the BAA police to a total strength of 80. The force will become a mere shadow of its former self. These men will be spread between four airports hundreds of miles apart.
The question must arise whether this can possibly be a viable police force. The BAA has made no secret of the fact that it does not believe that it would be a viable force. Some might think that the BAA in this respect would know best, but


we have had no statement of intent from the Government that these 80 men will be brought into the regular police and that these airports will be put under police control. Nor have we had any indication of which other airports, if any, the Government intend to bring under the regular police. Is Birmingham, for instance, an airport at which the Government intend the functions to be carried out by the regular police?
The merit of the amendment is that it brings more certainty to the Bill. It places on the Government a duty to be satisfied that the anti-terrorist security measures in British airports are sufficient. It requires what so far the Bill does not require; namely, that inspections shall be made of the security arrangements in all the airports. The amendment protects the public interest more surely than does the present wording of the Bill, and I urge the Government to accept it. I believe that it expresses what the Government intend.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): As a matter of principle, I do not think that there is anything between the two sides. We share the detestation of terrorism and everything that it stands for that has been expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Commitee. What we are arguing about is the most effective way of dealing wiht that potential menace, and we have to decide whether what the Opposition ask us to do would be an effective way of dealing with the position here and now. While I well undertand the reasons which have motivated the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) in moving the amendment, I believe it to be misconceived for several reasons.
The first misconception is that the present arrangements for ensuring the security of our airports are ineffective. That is not right. The whole basis underlying the Bill in relation to Heathrow is not that our security measures are ineffective but that they can be enhanced by the procedure that we propose in the Bill.
Unity of command at Heathrow is important because, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the nature of Heathrow is different from that of other airports. To put the matter in perspec-

tive, I will recount some of the developments that have occurred since we debated this matter in Committee a fortnight ago—developments which I think will please the hon. Gentleman.
In Committee we undertook to open consultations with the people concerned about the designation of BAA airports other than Heathrow. Those consultations have already been put in hand, and I give an assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing the situation to drift. We are aware of the urgency of the matter, but it always has to be borne in mind that if the Bill is to be enacted before the House rises for the Summer Recess—as I am confident it will be—it will be possible to deal only with the principal airport in respect of which the threat primarily exists, and that is Heathrow. To go further would involve the process of consultation, and would mean that we could not introduce the Bill at this stage.
The amendment, unlike some of those we discussed in Committee, would not bind the Secretary of State to a course of designation, nor alter the criteria on which he might act, but he would have to designate or satisfy himself that existing policing arrangements were adequate in the case of each and every aerodrome in the country.
We recognise the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the need for the Government to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the security measures at airports, but during the past two years the House has been advised of the programme of security of surveys of all our international airports undertaken by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. The initial surveys are complete, but the advisers to the Department maintain a comprehensive series of follow-up visits to monitor the implementation of their recommendations, to check that existing measures are being maintained, to determine whether further measures in the light of the circumstances, which change from time to time, are necessary, and to make available all possible advice and guidance.
It is clear that these steps have been welcomed by the airlines and by the airport authorities, and I emphasise that this activity applies to all our international airports and that all measures are kept under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that


the steps we take in this regard are inadequate, I hope he will accept that we maintain the closest surveillance of the position.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does this survey include the policing arrangements of these other airports?

Mr. Davis: It relates to the entirety of the security measures, including policing. There is another factor, which relates to the Protection of Aircraft Act. Under Section 17 the Secretary of State has power to inspect the security measures at any aerodrome in the United Kingdom. We have not found it necessary to rely upon that provision because we have had the voluntary co-operation of the airport authorities throughout the country.
The amendment would require us to have security inspections of all aerodromes, whether they have international services or not, regardless of the size of the aerodrome or of the aircraft using it, and it would insist that the inspections should be carried out without regard to whether there was any reason to believe that the aerodrome was under threat—and in order to ensure an efficient deployment of resources we have to take into account the fact that all security measures must be related to the current threat. If we failed to do that, we should not be making the most efficient use of the resources available.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the effectiveness of what he proposes is, therefore, seriously in doubt. I do not believe it to be a realistic way of approaching the matter. We have, in addition to those matters to which I have referred, the closest contact with the police services throughout the country, and they keep us closely in touch with the assessments they make of the security threat.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not complacent about this matter but we have to keep it in proportion. We have to determine, in taking action under the Bill, how most effective that action can be. There are 126 aerodromes licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and there are several hundred other, unlicensed, aerodromes. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting

that we should take action in relation to all those here and now? I cannot believe that that is the case.
11.15 p.m.
If hon. Members reflect and recognise the real security threat, I hope that they will think that the way in which we are dealing with the matter is the best way of deploying our resources. If we were to operate the plan envisaged by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield we should be deflecting our security personnel from the serious problems which present-day threats have created at major international airports like Heathrow.
I have given an assurance about consultations on the designation of other BAA airports. I have referred to the vigilance of the Government in reviewing all these matters. I have explained that the present drafting of the Bill need not inhibit action in any of the circumstances envisaged in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Assurances have also been given about the British Airports Authority Constabulary "rump" to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is a matter which will necessitate the most careful consultation between chief officers of police, police authorities and airport authorities. Any bypassing would be a grave error of judgment. It would not be acceptable to those authorities? I do not think it would be acceptable even to the BAAC, whose members would wish to have these matters thought out and worked out. I think that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament, which needs to discuss these designations, because different problems arise in different parts of the country.
For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I am sorry that the Minister was quite so unkind to the amendment, although I was fascinated to hear him say that one of the many reasons why it should be rejected was that Parliament needed to discuss the making of other designation orders.
The Bill is designed carefully to allow designation orders to go through on the negative procedure, and very few hon. Members regard that as the way in which Parliament normally gets a great deal of discussion about these matters. I do not


know whether the hon. Gentleman was hinting that the Government intended to enable the House to debate each order at a reasonable time of the day. If he was not, it was unkind, not to say unfair, to introduce that as an argument against the amendment.
I welcomed what the Minister said about the Government having no intention of allowing the situation to drift. However, he appeared to take a stand on the situation at Heathrow, where, he said, security measures were not ineffective but could be enhanced. If that is the criterion on which we are working, surely it is fair to point out that the other main airports in the country have security arrangements which, although not ineffective, could certainly be enhanced. We seek merely to urge the hon. Gentleman along this route.
Then the Minister said that to go into other fields would involve a long process of consultation, and that that was why it was not possible to express an intention to designate the four other BAA airfields. We can understand well enough that the completion of consultations is bound to take some time. But the decision to designate does not have to await the completion of consultations.
I return again to the answer to Written Question No. 137 on Monday 29th April by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The right hon. Gentleman said:
As a result I have agreed that the Metropolitan Police should assume responsibility for all policing at Heathrow. The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.]
The consultations have not been completed but have been started. The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that designation was right before the consultations were completed. Why could he not come to that conclusion regarding the other airfields?
I am still puzzled. I am still not satisfied about this matter. I should be happier if the hon. Gentleman could give us a clear indication of how long these consultations will take, their pace, and who is engaged in them. Are Ministers giving them their personal attention? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that every Monday morning he says "How far have these consultations got?" Will reports

be made to him regularly, or will the matter drift on in a gentlemanly fashion until some threat manifests itself at one of these airports?
These threats are made swiftly and cannot be foreseen. Only yesterday the Army arrived again at Heathrow. We do not know why. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows. We certainly would not ask him to tell us. But few other people know. The Army appeared at the airport, stayed for a while, and then went away. The threat had arrived suddenly. Presumably it went away suddenly, like the Army.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that these threats are made not against aerodromes but against aeroplanes and their passengers. If he thinks that by closing one bolt hole he can take it easy in the process of looking at the others, he is much mistaken.
I hope that even if the Minister feels that there are defects in the amendment—clearly, to ask for 120 airfields to be examined in this way is a bit much—he will give us an assurance that consultations will take place with great urgency, that he will call for reports on how they are progressing, and that he will report back to the House on the process of consultations and will designate the four other airports certainly before we meet again after the Summer Recess.

Mr. A. J. Keith: It should not be difficult for the Under-Secretary of State to see why various hon. Members feel drawn to the substance of the amendment, even though they recognise some of the problems which he has specified.
If the process of inspection of security arrangements in general, including policing, on a continuous basis at all aerodromes is as the hon. Gentleman described, it ought not to be so far-fetched to suggest that the information is available, at least in part, on which designation decisions could begin to be made for some of the airfields to which reference has been made.
It is difficult to be satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman said about the remaining British Airports Authority's aerodromes or airfields and those about which he said almost nothing; namely, the local authority airfields, the non-BAA civil airfields, which in some cases carry


an increasing volume of international traffic.
While no one expects an instant overnight designation of the whole of these airfields, involving a number of different police forces, I think that many of us feel that more should be forthcoming about the Government's intentions for both these sectors.
It should be stressed that it is not necessarily a criticism of the present work or the activities of the various police forces which operate at these airfields that we are asking for the designation to be made. It is not necessarily an indication that they are falling down on their job. It is not said in that spirit.
Indeed, the argument ought to appeal to the Minister that if we are asking the public to co-operate increasingly with more and more stringent security measures, it is reasonable to ask that these measures should, wherever possible, be enforced by a public police force. The kind of contact with the general public and the kind of measures that are called for by situations in which we are threatened by terrorism require both the experience and the attitude of the public police towards members of the public and the accountability which we associate with the public police.
For those reasons, rather than any sweeping criticism of the work of non-public police forces, of local airport security police and other bodies, I ask the Minister to recognise the extent of feeling and accept that he must look at other airports more carefully than he seems to have done so far. I join other Members in asking the Minister to go a little further than he has done.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I think the Minister will have noted that there is support for at least the spirit of the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Minister said that he was acting at Heathrow not because security was insufficient but because it could be enhanced. To a large extent that is a terminological argument. I am prepared to rest our case on the ground that security at other provincial airports can also be enhanced.
The Minister said something about British Airports Authority airports, but he said nothing about provincial airports, or about municipal and local authority airports, particularly the major ones such as Manchester and Birmingham.
May we take the consultations that are going on with the BAA police in the other airports as a statement of intent? We are trying to get from the Government a statement of their intent in relation to these four other airports which have the 80 remaining members of the BAA police. May we take it that if, after the consultations have taken place, the Government's view is that security could be improved the Minister intends to designate these other airports as well as Heathrow?

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has taken what I said in my opening remarks as envisaging a full-scale debate on the question of designation. What I was trying to say, perhaps inelegantly—certainly not as elegantly as the hon. Gentleman would wish me to offer my remarks—is that Parliament has a right to consider these matters. I think that that right must be preserved, and that is what we have sought to do in the Bill. I do not go any further than that, but whether it is the negative or the affirmative procedure the fact is that Members have a right to raise these matters.
The points made by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), Ching-ford, and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were similar in certain respects. I accept the integrity of their observations. Of course they are trying to improve the Bill. I do not say that the Bill is incapable of improvement, but I do not believe that the amendment would be effective. I think that it would be far too wide and would destroy the efficacy of what we are trying to do.
11.30 p.m.
However, it is the spirit of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman asks me to consider. The Government will give every consideration to the observations about security which have been made on both sides of the House. If it is thought that we are going too slow on the question of determining whether designation should take place, hon. Members are at liberty to give us a kick in the appropriate place.
The hon. Member for Chingford asked me whether we shall receive a letter every Monday morning on the pace of the consultations. We may receive a letter from him every Monday morning. I would not complain; at least the hon. Gentleman would be doing something useful. But I must not be too provocative, because I want to engage his support. I have tried to assert that we are not relaxing. I repeat my undertaking that we give this matter the highest priority.
We are also asked to decide to designate as a matter of principle. I do not think it would be right to do that. The hon. Member is factually incorrect when he says that we decided to designate Heathrow as a matter of principle before any consultations. That is not right. In fact, we entered into the closest consultations with the Metropolitan Police to determine whether that was an effective course of action. They were undertaken by the Conservative Government before we took over in March.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I did not say "before any consultation took place" but made the point that the designation decision was reached before the consultation process was completed, because I was told in the Secretary of State's reply:
The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.]

Mr. Davis: We did say that they were in progress, but it is a question of degree. It may be that the decision was taken before we went into discussions with the trade unions and finalised the discussions with the airport authorities. But the question whether this was to be an effective procedure was dependent upon the co-operation of the Metropolitan Police and whether it thought that it would be an effective procedure.
It must follow that if that was the case at Heathrow it must be the case at other airports. We have to consider with the other constabularies which would be involved in designation whether they feel that their local problems would render the procedure ineffective or whether it is compatible with their local situations.

Mr. Tebbit: It is now about 10 weeks since the announcement of the intention to designate Heathrow. Can the Minister say how many chief constables of other

police forces have been consulted during those 10 weeks?

Mr. Davis: To the best of my knowledge, all the chief constables who would be responsible for the areas involving other BAA airports have entered into preliminary consultations with the Department. If I am wrong—and I could be, because this is not a matter on which I have taken any specific instructions—I will put it right by writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the threat of 27th and 28th June at Heathrow. I do not know with what purpose that allusion was made, except to say, I suppose, that if the situation could occur at Heathrow there could be a sudden development at any other international airport in the country. That may be right, but looking at the balance of probabilities in this matter—looking at the situation that has occurred internationally—what we have seen is that, I think, virtually all the incidents have taken place at the premier international airports in the countries concerned. I do not rule out the possibility that we could have an attack at Birmingham or any municipal airport; of course we could. But the Government take the view that they must be sensitive to the views of local authorities and the constabularies concerned before making decisions in principle.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Member is making a broad generalisation. He is saying that it is the Government's view that almost the entire threat of terrorism is now centred on the major airports, and he prays in aid the experiences in various other countries. If that is the case, why in Germany do the police force police not only what the hon. Member considers to be the major airport but all the major airports in that country?

Mr. Davis: The experience of other countries in Europe and elsewhere varies from one to the other. It is true that in Germany the police force oversees the whole question of security, but in other countries it does not happen in that way. In any event, in this country we have effective police supervision of the BAA airports. Local authority airports employ their own local constabulary, or some form of constabulary, to deal with the


situation affecting them. It is not as though there was no police presence; there is. It would be wrong for the House to come to any other conclusion.
We are considering how to achieve the most effective police presence, and how we can do that depends to a large extent upon the voluntary co-operation of the local constabularies.
I have taken to heart what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said in that regard. There is one other matter to which he referred, which has little to do with the amendment. It is the question of the public response to private security organisations operating at various airports, the question of public accountability and the rest, which we have discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. I can only repeat in this connection that within a matter of a week or so of coming into office we put in hand within the Department an examination of the rôle of private security organisations. I have had the report presented to me, as I indicated when the hon. Member raised the matter on a previous occasion, and I assure him that I am giving the matter proper consideration. I cannot, however, give it the degree of active priority which the Bill demands. I think that the hon. Member will accept that.

Mr. Beith: The observations that I made on this occasion were with respect to the police forces operating at municipal airports rather than to private security forces. When I described private or non-public police forces I meant the various forms of police force other than the public constabulary and those which are operating in some non-BAA airports.

Mr. Davis: I take the hon. Member's point and I shall look at the question seriously.
I think that I have dealt with the major points that have been made. I am sorry that I cannot go as far as the hon. Member would like in making a statement of intent, for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the House will accept those reasons.
What divides us is not a matter of principle; it is simply a question of tactics in dealing with this threat, which we all abhor. I urge the House to recognise

that the amendment, as drawn—and we have to deal with it as drawn—would represent a very ineffective way of dealing with the position and would not result in a satisfactory deployment of the resources that we have available. I therefore invite the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I would not like to pretend that I am altogether happy with that reply. It still leaves unsettled the question of the four airports, the British Airports Authority and the 80 men there. We still have not had a statement of intent. We have had no statement whatever on the future policing arrangements in the municipal airports. We do not want to delay the Bill, however. We welcome the consultations that have taken place. We want to see the security arrangements the hon. Gentleman has described taking place at Heathrow. Accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'authorise' and insert 'require'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 27, leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert
'specified by or determined in accordance with the order'.

Dr. Summerskill: In Committee it was strongly argued that Clause 6 should give aerodrome constables and supporting civilian staff who were adversely affected by the designation of an airport a complete assurance of compensation and some right of appeal in case of any dispute as to their qualification for compensation or as to its amount. I undertook to look again at these provisions.
I have already given the assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions. I think it would be in accordance with the views expressed in Committee that I should take this opportunity


to put on the record that this assurance extends to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated. I hope that the House will therefore accept that the Government will take the necessary action.
The view was expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State should be required to include provision for compensation in the supplementary order. The purpose of Clause 6 is to enable the Secretary of State to make the necessary provisions for a whole variety of circumstances which could arise on designation, or on "de-designation". If the Secretary of State were required to include provision for compensation this would have to be done on every occasion, whether or not there were staff requiring compensation. At some airports—for instance Southend—there are no aerodrome police. At other airports there are no civilians who would be affected by designation in the sense envisaged by the clause. Furthermore, the provision would have to be included if it were decided to "de-designate" an airport. It does not seem sensible to the Government, therefore, to proceed by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State. Nor does that seem necessary in order to give staff the protection that we all agree is desirable.
Nevertheless, on reconsidering the matter the Government accept that Clause 6(2)(e) could be improved. If the power as it now stands in the Bill was exercised, a person affected would have no right to compensation; the airport authority would merely be authorised to pay compensation. It could choose whether or not to do so. In the unlikely event of its choosing not to do so, an individual affected would have no remedy, nor could the Secretary of State do anything about it. Thus, requiring the Secretary of State to authorise the compensation provision would not necessarily change matters. Even where the authority chose to implement a compensation scheme—a more likely situation—in case of a dispute relating to compensation the individual would have no legal remedy unless the scheme had been incorporated in his conditions of service.
11.45 p.m.
These amendments are intended to improve that state of affairs. If the first amendment is carried, the Secretary of State will be empowered to require,

instead of to authorise, the payment of compensation. The individual affected by a designation order will not be dependent for compensation on the good will of the airport authority. Further, since the authority will be required to make payments in accordance with a scheme for compensation the individual will be entitled to receive such payments. Any dispute as to his right to compensation could, therefore, be the subject of legal proceedings; in effect the individual is given a right of appeal to the courts. I commend the amendment to the House as a significant improvement in the clause. Given the undertakings I have just made about Government action, I hope that it meets the substance of the criticism levelled at subsection (2)(e) in Committee.
The second amendment is, in the main, consequential on the first. If the airport authority is to be required to give effect to a compensation scheme, it must be told what it is. It would not be appropriate to leave it to the authority to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State for approval as would be the case under the present provision. The second amendment therefore provides that the scheme shall either be specified in the order or shall be in accordance with the provisions of the order.
This second amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to set out the scheme in full in the order. I doubt, however, that there would be likely to be a sufficient number of persons adversely affected at any particular airport to justify this. Hon. Members may be aware that a typical compensation code, such as that contained in the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1974, extends to something like 30 pages of print. Where only a handful of people were candidates for compensation, it is more probable that the detailed scheme would be settled in accordance with the terms of the supplementary order; the order could well provide that the compensation scheme should be such as was agreed between the airport authority and the Secretary of State or, in default of agreement, as was determined by the Secretary of State. This, however, is largely a matter of machinery and the provisions to be included in a particular supplementary order would be a matter for consultation with all concerned; this would include


consultation under Clause 6(6). Whatever arrangement was adopted would not affect the right of appeal to which I have referred.

Mr. Norman Fowler: We are very grateful to the hon. Lady. Bearing in mind what has been said about security previously, I was fascinated to learn that there are no policemen at Southend airport. However, perhaps I should not push that matter on this clause. As the hon. Lady said, the Opposition were concerned about the compensation entitlement of members of the BAA police who were affected by the decision to take the police into the Metropolitan Police. We were concerned first that there should be an entitlement to compensation. That, as I understand it, the hon. Lady has given them. We were concerned secondly that there should be some form of appeal, and that, I understand, is through an entitlement to take an action in the courts. Therefore, we are grateful that the hon. Lady has gone so far to meet the points that we put forward in Committee on this question.
One should again stress that the fact that the BAA police are being taken into the Metropolitan Police is no criticism of the BAA police. Therefore, compensation certainly must be their entitlement.
I have two questions to ask the hon. Lady. First, on the appeals procedure, she has said that the appeal entitlement will now be an entitlement to appeal to the courts. I am sure she will understand that this can be an expensive business for a litigant and that the possible cost of losing an appeal may outweigh the money to be gained. Is any arbitration machinery open before that step is taken?
Second, the hon. Lady has made it clear that power to pay compensation will be used not only at Heathrow but also at other BAA airports. Under the terms of the Bill, however, it is quite possible that the police will take over other airports besides those run by the BAA. In other words, they may take over airports that at the moment are under municipal control—Manchester and Birmingham, for example. May we assume that this assurance about compensation will extend to those other airports as well as to BAA airports?

Mr. Tebbit: I should have reminded the house earlier that I act tonight as the adviser and representative of the British Airports Authority Police Federation. I am delighted with the progress that we are making towards seeing that federation disappear, and that job of mine disappear with it.
I can tell the hon. Lady that her amendment will get at least two and a half cheers from the members of the BAA police, because she has gone a long way towards meeting what we asked. The argument in Standing Committee turned, as so often happens, on the question of "shall" and "may". I have now conceived the ambition to go to the wedding of a parliamentary draftsman. I want to see what happens when the preacher asks him "Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?" and he answers "I may". One day perhaps we shall all be invited to such a function.
There is one serious matter that I should like to raise with the hon. Lady It is the suggestion that when an agreement for transfer is negotiated with employees and an employee accepts that agreement and transfers, he thereby disqualifies himself from any compensation. I cannot believe that that is so.
A number of employees are affected. The rent allowances of some policemen may be affected. In some instances those allowances are higher for a BAA constable than they are for a Metropolitan constable. It would be totally wrong for an officer accepting transfer to suffer a sudden reduction in his take-home emoluments, of £2 or £3 a week in some instances, and to be told that he has accepted those conditions. The hon. Lady seems to suggest that it is the intention that compensation could be and will be awarded in such cases, presumably by the authority, but I should be grateful for confirmation.
There is a rather wider effect in that I understand that traffic wardens employed by the BAA have considerably higher pay than those employed by the Metropolitan Police and, unless some arrangement of this sort is made, when the transfer is effected there will suddenly be a great shortage of traffic wardens at Heathrow. Although that may be enjoyable for some of us for a short time, it


will no doubt cause considerable inconvenience in the longer run. Perhaps the hon. Lady will clear that up.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that there is a cost factor in going to court, but I have simply set out the principle of the scheme. Naturally, in the details the possibility of arbitration would have to be worked out. There is provision for compensation at other designated airports. As I have said, we have given an assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions, and I extend that assurance to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 1 in page 6, line 27 leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert:
'specified by or determined in accordance with the order.'.—[Dr. Surnmerskill.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is an important Bill. The Opposition have sought to offer constructive criticism while supporting its general principles. The Bill gives the police wide powers, like the stop and search powers over airport staff, the public, vehicles and even aircraft. We have supported the transfer of these powers not only because of the crime problem but because of the terrorist threat. It is regrettable that the activities of terrorists make it even more essential to have checks of that kind, and it is important that the Government should emphasise this in public discussion on the Bill and on the terrorist situation.
If the public are to be protected, it is possible that they may generally have to accept more checks than have been the custom in the past. We live in the age of the terrorist and an airport provides a tempting target for the urban guerrilla. It is right to deploy all possible strength in meeting the challenge. To put an airport like Heathrow under the control of the police is only to recognise the facts of life today. The security of Heathrow will soon he the responsibility of the

police under the Home Secretary and the Commissioner. That is the whole reason for the Bill.
Where does the Army fit into the general security pattern? It would help public understanding of the police rôle if we were to be told what is the procedure by which the Army is brought in. Who makes the request? Is it the police, and under what powers? I am not criticising the Army action. It is necessary, but it would help to have the position concerning the police powers made clear. What would happen in the kind of situation which occurred at Munich at the time of the Olympic Games? The Germans tried to intercept the terrorists and release the hostages. The attempt by the police to interfere was tragically unsuccessful. What would be the position in that kind of situation at Heathrow? We know that some of the police are armed, but would they be able to call on the help of the Army in such a situation? These are important questions, and I accept that they are delicate matters involving security, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give some guidance.
There is one further point which I should like to raise. Clause 3 deals with prevention of theft and this remains an important object of the new arrangements. At Heathrow in particular this matter has become somewhat sensitive. It should be made clear that because we say that there is a serious crime problem at Heathrow this should not be taken as a generalised and indiscriminate attack on everybody working there. That is not the intention. Most of the staff are honest and much crime originates from outside the area. However, it should not prevent us pointing out that the problem of crime exists at Heathrow as at every other international airport. I revert to my original suggestion. There is a greater chance of the fight against crime being effective if it is accompanied by a major crime prevention campaign aimed at the passengers themselves.
Successful policing depends above all on good relations between the police and the public. It is no secret that relations between the police and some of the working staff at Heathrow have in the past been strained. Clearly, an airport presents special problems because of the


many functions it performs. It is essentially a workplace rather than a community. The police have a responsibility to recognise the special problems created by the special situation at airports. Furthermore, the work force also has a responsibility to recognise the many and special difficulties faced by the police. The Opposition hope that the passing of the Bill will usher in not only a new but also a much happier year at Heathrow.

12.3 a.m.

Dr. Summerskill: In the course of the various proceedings on the Bill there has been agreement about its broad purposes. Such comment as there has been on the precise content of the Bill has been directed primarily towards future action by the Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
I feel that I should seek to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). The Bill addresses itself to the question of ensuring that there are no avoidable obstacles to efficient policing and security arrangements at an airport. The Bill is necessary because the circumstances envisaged when the present policing arrangements at Heathrow were introduced have substantially changed. The measures necessary to deal with those circumstances must change as well. Experience has shown the importance of a unified command in an emergency. What the Bill seeks to do is to bring airport policing arrangements into line with the demands which, regrettably but unavoidably, can now be placed upon them.
One point in particular has attracted a great deal of attention during the passage of the Bill. I refer to the Government's policy about the exercise of the powers in the Bill at the other airports belonging to the BAA. It has been pointed out that the very fact of increasing the efficiency of the security arrangements at Heathrow is bound to render more attractive to the potential terrorists possible targets at other airports. It has been said that after the designation at Heathrow, and the expected transfer of the great majority of the officers there to the Metropolitan Police, the BAAC will no longer be a viable force. In the same context it has been pointed out that the remaining 100 or so members of the force will be deprived of the promotion

and career opportunities that they envisaged when they joined.
The Government have taken full note of all these points and I hope that hon. Members have accepted the assurance I gave in Committee that the Government would now embark on a process of consultation with the authorities concerned about the designation of the remaining BAA airports. This is now in hand. As I think has become clear during the course of the various discussions, the criteria for the designation of an airport that are set down in Clause 1 of the Bill are such as to allow the Secretary of State to act in the sort of circumstances that hon. Members have negatived, and there need therefore be no concern that for purely technical reasons the Government will be unable to do what is necessary.
At this stage I can only repeat the assurance I have already given that the Government see the force in the points that have been made and will bear them very much in mind in the consultations that are now taking place. As I think is generally accepted, however, there must be consultations on both the broad questions and on matters of detail, not least those affecting people who might transfer, and it must be one of the main aims of such consultations to reach agreement between all the parties involved. It would clearly not be helpful in practice to proceed without there being such agreement. During the consultations that will now take place, therefore, the Government will be very much influenced by the need to reach agreement.
There has been concern on both sides of the House that the Government and the other agencies concerned should always remain vigorous in their measures against possible terrorist attack at an airport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and I have said enough to assure hon. Members that the Government are very much aware of their responsibilities in this respect. I hope it has become clear that there is no lack of vigilance or energy on the Government's part. The special measures which were taken at Heathrow between Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill and which have been taken today are, I hope, sufficient evidence of this fact.
The answer to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is that the presence of


the Army at Heathrow is at the request of the police but with the approval of Ministers, primarily the Home Secretary. There is a common law obligation on every person to assist the civil power when asked to do so. The request of the Metropolitan Police for military assistance derives from this, but the Army is at all times under the direction of the police.
The Bill is but one aspect of the broad range of matters which concern the Government in this field and which have to be judged in their totality.

Mr. Fowler: I asked the hon. Lady a second question, about armed interception.

Dr. Summerskill: The answer to that question is "Yes".
My hon. Friend has said that the Government are always prepared to learn from experience both here and abroad and to pay attention to views which may be expressed. There will be no lessening either of this vigilence or of the readiness to learn as circumstances change.
I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said about prevention of crime and the dangers of theft. I would remind him that the Bill is concerned not only with the preservation of the peace but with the prevention of crime. I hope that the House will be pleased to give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RAILWAYS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause

SUPERIORS' EXISTING RIGHTS

'Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to alter retrospectively rights which any superior may have acquired before the commencement of this Act'.—[Mr. English.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I suppose that your hesitation in calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was caused by the fact that it must be a little unusual for a Member representing an English constituency to move at an earlier hour an amendment to an Irish Bill, then to move a new clause to a Scottish Bill at this hour and to be facing the prospect of chairing a Committee considering a Welsh order tomorrow morning. However, if I promptly declare an interest in the subject matter of this Bill it may explain why I am proposing the new clause.
Technically I am a superior, to use a term of art in Scottish law, and there fore the Bill affects a financial interest of mine. It is a very small financial interest. I assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that I am wholly in favour of the purpose of the Bill, namely, that feuduties should eventually be extinguished or be capable of redemption.
I move the new clause to ascertain one point. If I relate a small story it will illustrate the case. What I understand often happens in Scotland happened in the case of my feuduties. Someone built a couple of houses on a piece of land without asking the then superior, who was my predecessor in title. The argument was settled in writing but not in due legal form until the first of the many Bills on this subject proposed by my party in a former incarnation. At this point nobody wished to settle in the final due legal form because of the checkered history of the proposed reform.
Finally—this is a bit of cheek which leads me to believe that this situation is not unique to me but affects many people in Scotland—a solicitor recently sent out a printed circular saying that he would not do anything about cases of this character because of the prospect of legislation of the type we are considering. Therefore, I wish to ensure by the new clause that something which has been going on for years and which would have been settled but for the prospect of legislation can still be dealt with and that any rights which superiors have cannot be taken away. A feu which could or should have been created can be redeemed under the Bill. That is not my concern. I am concerned that the Bill should not take away rights which would have been compensated but for the Bill.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has raised an interesting point. I can give him the general assurance which he seeks. The Bill has been drafted carefully so as to ensure that any existing rights which a superior may have—for example, to enforce land conditions, but it is not limited to that—are not adversely affected as a result of the redemption of feuduty.
It is expressly provided in the Bill that when a feuduty is redeemed
the feu shall continue in force otherwise as if the feuduty were not redeemed.
My hon. Friend will realise that that is a perfectly reasonable legal expedient for ensuring that in general the rights which he wishes to hold entire remain entire.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I wonder whether the Lord Advocate can guide us. It seems to me that the new clause totally nullifies the object of the Bill. At present superiors have rights of feuduty in perpetuity, and the result of the Bill would be retrospectively to remove those rights. Therefore, I should have thought that passing the clause would result in completely wrecking the work done so far. However, as the Bill deals with broad principles will the Lord Advocate give an assurance about any discussions he may have had with his right hon. Friends on the problems that will arise from the Bill for people who suffer tax losses?

12.15 a.m.

The Lord Advocate: I should be straying into dangerous waters if I attempted in this debate to go into the question of tax losses. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me on the detailed point I will consider it.
Were it not that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has indicated that if he receives my assurance he will seek to withdraw the clause, I would have to point out that the clause as drafted is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The Bill seeks to excise feuduties from the rights of superiors, and in certain detailed ways it must act to some extent retrospectively.
The important matter on which my hon. Friend seeks assurance—and this assurance I give him—is that the package is so arranged that it is designed to excise the feuduty and leave the feudal package otherwise unchanged.

Mr. English: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I read English law and not Scots law, so it is entirely probable that my technical drafting would not achieve the object I have in mind. My hon. and learned Friend has entirely satisfied me, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

RIGHT TO REDEEM FEUDUTY, GROUND ANNUAL, ETC. ON A TERM DAY

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 3 leave out from 'agent' to the end of line 5 and insert:
'notice of his desire to redeem the feuduty exigible in respect of such land as he sufficiently identifies in said notice'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. George Thomas): With this we are taking Amendment No. 4, in Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 4 to 19.

Mr. Taylor: The amendment deals with a point which we raised in Committee. The Minister was sympathetic and said that he would see whether an amendment could be introduced on Report. No such amendment has been introduced.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that when people come to redeem their feus they will not necessarily have to go through what appears to be the complicated procedure of completing the form set out in Schedule 1. We suggest that if people give notification in a reasonable and sensible way they should be able to redeem the feu. This appeared to be a sensible point, and I still think that it is. Will the Lord Advocate say why he has not introduced an amendment to this effect?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has put his case very fairly. It was discussed in Committee and I was at the time sympathetic. I remain sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment, but cogent reasons can be given why this method of achieving the objective which he and I both seek to achieve—namely, simplicity and clarity—is not to be achieved by the amendment. The object of the amendment is to produce informality, and it is the danger of informality of this particular type upon which I must concentrate.
The amendment recognises that it is necessary for the proprietor to give notice to the superior but leaves it to the proprietor to devise his own way of making intimation to the superior. There are circumstances in which that would be perfectly proper, but here it could give rise to difficulty and, indeed, the complications would be greater than any apparent advantage that would be obtained through simplicity.
The amendment is in substantially the same terms as the one moved in Committee. It is improved to meet the criticism I then made in respect of descriptions of land. To that extent the amendment is better than the one we considered in Committee. It goes to identification of the property rather than a detailed conveyancing description, and that is all that is needed. I accept that the amendment so far is correct.
There is no dispute about the desirability of simplicity, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken fully into account the matters which were pressed strongly on me in Committee. I am satisfied, having looked into it with great care, that the Bill achieves all that can be done in this direction short of what I

shall say in a moment about publicity and the availability of forms to be filled in by proprietors. They are preprinted forms which are as simple as possible, and they will be accompanied by a guide which sets out in great detail what needs to be done.
The form of the notice prescribed in the Bill in Schedule 1 is already extremely simple and requires only a minimum of essential information needed to enable the transaction to be carried out. I do not think that there will be dispute between the hon. Gentleman and the Government about the fact that this information is essential. The proprietor has to provide his name and address and the date of signing the notice; the name and address of the superior or his agent—normally the person to whom he pays feuduty; the term day on which he wishes to redeem the feuduty or other similar payment; the amount of the feuduty and so on; and sufficient identification of the land in respect of which the feuduty is exigible.
Those are, in effect, no more than the details which the proprietor would naturally include in even an informal letter, and there is nothing therein which should give him any difficulty at all. They are what we provide in the schedule and are obviously what any layman would include in such a notice. It achieves what we all want to achieve—simplicity—in giving due notice of desire to redeem to his superior.
I have considered this matter with great care, and it appears to me that the do-it-yourself proprietor who sought to write his own notice would write it best using the form proposed in the schedule as a model. He would not be tied down by technicalities. The Bill provides that the notice must be in the form included in the schedule or as near as may be. In other words, the proprietor has a guide in the schedule.
The amendment would mean, however, that the schedule would go and there would be no guide to which the proprietor might turn or on which he could rely in doing his own draft of a suitable form of notice to the superior.
It is essential that the proprietor should indicate, when he wished to redeem feuduty, the amount of the feuduty and the land. I have dealt with the question of the date and of identifying the correct


parcel of land. I have no doubt that any person who wrote a letter including this essential information would have it accepted by the superior as a proper notice. Indeed, when a notice has been given to the superior it is for the superior to give a receipt in the prescribed form. When that receipt is given, the superior must comply with the proper formalities. That is provided for in the other schedules.
I take the case quoted in Committee and which exercised us all greatly and was the strongest point put to me. A letter in the form contained in Form 1 of Schedule 1 might be an informal letter by the proprietor to the superior and might not make specific mention of Clause 4. Considering the matter carefully, I think the answer is that if the informal letter mentioned the essential information the superior would obviously give the receipt lie has to give in the terms of Form 2 of Schedule 1, which would mention Clause 4 of the Bill: and once that stage had been reached the notice would be perfectly factually given and acted upon.
The more one thinks of it, the more obvious it is that a letter perhaps deficient in one item—perhaps something we would agree to be essential—could properly be admitted in layman's language, since it is possible that the superior would say "This is sufficient notice" and would reply in terms of Form 2 or would write back and say "You have sent notice of redemption but you have missed out such and such. Can you tell us what it is?" The answer would then come back in another letter.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will copies of the printed forms be available to the public, and how much will they cost?

The Lord Advocate: I hope that forms of this kind and the guides to which I have referred will be available free at citizens' advice bureaux and public libraries. For the guide, we have in mind a booklet entitled "The abolition of feu-duties" and we hope that it will give people a clear guide what to do. Accompanying the booklet will be the forms, easy to fill in, to enable the layman to do a better job than by writing an informal letter.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cathcart will accept that his amendment is not likely to achieve the object that the Bill, unamended, will achieve.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, especially for the information that the forms will be readily available in citizens' advice bureaux and elsewhere. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

PROPERTY LET UNDER FUTURE LONG LEASE, ETC. NOT TO BE USED AS PRIVATE DWELLING-HOUSE

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 36, at end insert:
(7) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, but nothing in that Act restricting the power of a court to make an order for possession of a dwelling-house shall prevent the granting of a decree of removing under section 9(1) of this Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Government Amendment No. 3.

The Lord Advocate: The object of the amendment is to clarify the general purpose of the Bill. I need not go into a long explanation of how this is achieved. It will be obvious that, when we are dealing with long leases, there is a possible overlap between the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 and the Bill. Clearly it is desirable that the Rent (Scotland) Act should do what it was supposed to do and not be affected adversely by the Bill. It is clear too that this Bill should do what it is supposed to do and not be encroached upon by the 1971 Act.
The Bill as drafted probably ensures that this division of labour is achieved. For the avoidance of doubt, however, and to avoid the possibility of a clash between the two enactments, it is thought desirable to have a subsection making it clear that the Rent (Scotland) Act is to play its part and that the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act, as we hope it will become, is to play its part. The wording of the subsection makes this clear.
I do not think that much elaboration is required, but if hon. Gentlemen have any detailed matters that they wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what "being" means in the second line of Amendment No. 2? In Part II, when we talk about the introduction of leases, we say that they cannot be for primarily residential accommodation. However, subsection (3) provides that it possible to have a commercial development on lease with a small residential part which is incidental to the main purpose of the lease. The amendment provides:
Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy
Does "being" cover "remaining"?
Let us suppose that a lease is given for a large commercial block within which there is one little house which is a protected or statutory tenancy. I hope that by making this amendment we shall not change the position of what was or is a protected or statutory tenancy. The impression which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives is that he does not want to change anything. Can he say whether "being" covers "remaining"? In other words, will a protected tenancy within what becomes leasehold property remain a protected tenancy?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has put an important question to me. I can answer it positively. The object of this part of the Bill is to ensure that the Rent Act shall not be superseded by Part II. The word "being" is used in a general sense, and rightly so. It would include "remaining". The object is to ensure that a tenancy of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind would remain a protected tenancy.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

MODIFICATION OF SECTION 9 WHERE LEASE SUBJECT TO SUB-LEASE OR HERITABLE SECURITY

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (6).—[The Lord Advocate.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of tile Crown, and Prince of Wales's. Consent (in respect of the Principality and the Stewartry of Scotland), signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Animals (Export)

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: With your permission. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition which has 26,036 signatures collected by the Sidmouth Animal Group and my constituent Mrs. Jackson from all parts of the country.
The petition states
that it is an impossibility to ensure the humane treatment in transit and slaughter of live food animals, including equines, exported from Great Britain.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do prohibit all such exports, with the exception of high value pedigree animals, and that a carcass trade be substituted.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

Orders of the Day — VICTORIA HOSPITAL, ACCRINGTON (MATERNITY UNIT)

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The title of the debate is somewhat misleading, because it refers to the maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital. In fact, we do not have a maternity unit. The purpose of the debate, despite the title, is to draw the Minister's attention once again to the need for a new maternity home in Accrington. I say "once


again" because, as my hon. Friend will know, this is not the first time that I have raised this matter in the House.
Some years ago I raised the matter in a similar Adjournment debate, also in the early hours of the morning. It is a sad reflection on the state of affairs as a whole that several years later we should still be without a maternity home in Accrington, though plans are now positive for the building of a 17-bed unit, plus a new out-patients' department, in the old nurses' home.
The history of the maternity unit, or the lack of a maternity unit, is littered with delay, deferment and disappointment. Therefore, once again I have to raise this matter, but I am happy to do so in conjunction and associating myself with the excellent, forthright and continuing campaign being run by the Lancashire Evening Telegraph under the title "Hands off our hospitals." The Minister will no doubt be aware of this campaign and will have seen the cuttings. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is most diligent in noticing everything that goes on in North-East Lancashire, will have personal knowledge of this campaign and will be sympathetic.
I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the sad history of this whole affair. It was then considered outdated and inadequate, and yet today, about 13 years later, the 11-bed maternity home still provides the only maternity facilities in Accrington.
The Minister will know, if he has read the reports in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph and elsewhere, that the home is outdated, but the staff do magnificent work, and the birth rate is about 365 a year—almost one a day. I am sure that the Minister, being a doctor, will realise that it is inadequate and deplorable that such conditions should exist in 1974. This is not to decry the staff or the excellent work that they do. The home is regarded with great affection throughout Accrington, but it is still totally inadequate to meet the needs of 1974.
The 20-bed plan was put forward in 1961. A couple of years later a new plan came into being. This was to build a 40-bed unit on waste land beside the

hospital, and this was to be linked to the main building by a tunnel under Whalley Road. The estimated cost was about £500,000. It was possibly rightly considered to be too expensive, and the project was then shelved.
However, the fight for a propel maternity unit went on, and in 1967 I presented to the then Parliamentary Secretary a petition, signed by about 17,000 people, which had been organised by the then medical officer of health and which had been campaigned for vigorously by two former mayoresses of Accrington, Mrs. Pollard and Mrs. Frances Smith.
That culminated a couple of years later in possibly the largest meeting ever attended by representatives of the regional board—they said this—at the town hall in Accrington. It was agreed that a 20-bed proposal, which was being put forward by the board itself, would be proceeded with. Although the audience and my constituents felt that a 40-bed unit was correct, the local medical practitioners in their wisdom—and possibly they were right—felt that a 20-bed unit was adequate, and we are prepared to accept that. It was understood that this was to be built in the old nurses' home, and the nurses moved out for the unit to be built.
A couple of years later there was further bad news. We then learned that the 20-bed unit was not to be built, but that a 17-bed unit would be built instead, but this would also mean that alongside it or as part of the nurses' home there would be a new out-patient department, and possibly this was a better use of the nurses' home than building only a maternity unit.
It was the Accrington Observer which drew attention to this change. I took the matter up, as did that newspaper, and we were at least partly assuaged in our anger by the fact that the unit was to be built and had been included in the building programme for this year. However, earlier this year we learned that there was to be a further deferment. This was the direct result of the deplorable public expenditure cuts that were announced by the previous Government in December. I was one of those who pointed out at the time how badly North-East Lancashire would be hit by those


cuts, and this is just one of the direct results. The cuts have extended to education and elsewhere, but it would not be right for me to refer to that in this debate.
The first purpose of the debate is to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need for a definite decision. If he cannot restore the cuts to the extent of guaranteeing that the maternity unit will be built this year—and I do not expect that he can, for it is too late—I should like at least an assurance that it will be given the earliest possible priority, and that it is intended to proceed with the 20-bed or 17-bed maternity unit and outpatient department at the earliest possible opportunity.
The second purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the fact that North-East Lancashire has been treated very badly and unfairly over the years in the way in which resources have been given to it for hospital building as a whole. One of the points the Evening Telegraph and the regional committee have made is that over the years the North-West has received far less than its fair share compared with another region. They point out that the North-West, with 9·5 per cent. of the population of England and Wales, has received only 7·2 per cent. of the money distributed for hospital building since 1948. They are deplorable figures. It is scandalous that that situation should have gone on so long. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that he intends to rectify it at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the new basis for allocation will not be purely that of population, although that must be one of the factors. My hon. Friend must also take into consideration the state of hospital building as a whole. In the North-West there are probably more old and dilapidated buildings than in most other regions.
Apart from that, North-East Lancashire has suffered doubly badly because it has had less than its fair share in a region which itself has had less than its fair share. That state of affairs must also be rectified.
There is not a great deal more I wish to say, because I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the problem, as I have discussed it with him privately. It is unfair that a whole region should be served by

an outdated 11-bed unit which was built as a home, which has been adapted, and which has many inadequacies. It is in need of repair. It does not even have a lift. It is scandalous that mothers in that late stage of pregnancy should have to be carried upstairs in 1974.
I visit the unit regularly, and I pay tribute to it. I visit it most Christmases. Only two or three Christmases ago Mrs. David Lloyd, the wife of the distinguished cricketer who has batted so well for England recently, had a Christmas Day baby there. Many distinguished citizens of Accrington have had babies there. But the unit is now too old and there is an urgent need for an immediate start on building the new 20-bed or 17-bed maternity unit and out-patient department in the old nurses' home.
I hope that the debate has highlighted the need, and that my hon. Friend will have reasonably encouraging news to give in reply.

12.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) for the way in which he has argued his case. I know that ever since he has been a Member he has taken a considerable interest in this aspect of the health services affecting his constituency. I very much regret that over the years he has experienced disappointment, delay and frustration, which are shared by his constituents.
I assure my hon. Friend that, following my own discussions with him and my discussions with the Secretary of State and with the regional health authority, we are both well aware of the problem, and, as my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State has a particular interest in this area and an extreme knowledge of it. I have discussed the whole problem with her. I have also read the campaign being conducted in the local newspapers, and I welcome the interest they are taking in the health service and the recognition they have shown that this requires extra resources.
I want to deal with the issue. I do not think that the House needs any further elaboration from me of the history. My hon. Friend is well aware of the changes and the delays, but it is worth putting on record the main facts. The size and


nature of the maternity unit have been debated over many years, and undoubtedly have been changed from time to time, but since mid-1973 it has been decided by the then regional hospital board that, first, it would be a 17-bed unit on the first floor of the former nurses' home, the ground floor being needed for out-patients. I recognise that even that reduction of beds from 20 was disappointing. Secondly, it was programmed to start in 1973–74 at a cost, then, of £181,000, but it did not start in 1973–4, having been caught by the three-months' moratorium on building starts. Thirdly, it was decided that it would replace the Rough Lee general practitioner maternity unit—11 beds—which would in due course be closed.
The problem has been that it was delayed because of the first sign of the economic difficulties that were starting in 1973–74 under the previous Government, when there was a considerable moratorium on building starts.
It was then affected savagely by the December 1973 cuts. The then Government announced reductions of about £1,200 million in public expenditure planned for 1974–75, including a reduction of one-fifth in capital programmes. For hospitals and community health services in England alone this meant a reduction of about £45 million.
Then, coming to 1973—at the end of 1973—for the 1974–75 programme the question facing the Department and the health service was how and where this cut was to be applied; it was inevitable that sacrifices would have to be made and that cherished schemes would have to be postponed. The problem was how to minimise the adverse effects while still achieving real economy.
My right hon. Friend has from time to time championed in the House the need to spend money on the health service and, what is more, has been prepared to go to the electorate and argue for increases in taxation, and I find it strange that now, after the first three months of the first financial year, people seem to be disregarding the effects of the December cuts in the health service, the hospital programme and, particularly, the education programmes.
When we looked at the way in which these cuts would operate it was decided

that apart from special allocations for geriatric service, certain teaching hospital schemes and certain ex-local authority schemes, the allocation of capital to regional health authorities for 1974–75 should be based on the following factors: first, the needs of authorities to meet the contractural obligations of their predecessor regional hospital boards; secondly, the need of authorities for a programme of essential small schemes and the purchase of essential equipment; thirdly, provision for the highest priority major schemes planned to start in 1974–75. To this end the Department's officers made visits to every regional health authority and discussed in some detail the programmes they were inheriting from their predecessor regional hospital boards.
The Government decided that priority was to be given nationally to services for the mentally ill and the elderly, services for the younger chronic sick and mentally handicapped and certain other services, including fire precautions. Within these guidelines the North Western Regional Health Authority decided as a matter of principle that schemes designed to enable services to be provided where none already existed should take precedence over schemes designed to improve existing services. Though I recognise that the scheme is new, it is designed to improve existing services. The resultant main programme allocation for the North Western Regional Health Authority for 1974–75 was £11·6 million to cover all capital expenditure, including the purchase of land and property, ambulances and equipment.
I do not disguise from the House that regional health authorities had an unenviable task in trying to select priority schemes from a list of schemes all of which were important enough to be scheduled for commencement of building in the succeeding financial year. The new maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital is intended to replace and improve upon existing facilities at Rough Lee. It could not be treated as essential however desirable an improvement it might be. It was one of a number of larger schemes which suffered the same fate, so it cannot be suggested that Accrington has been singled out for unfavourable treatment. It is, I fear, the consequence of the substantial cuts in public expenditure affecting the health services.
My hon. Friend can rightly ask what we have done to try to alleviate the situation. As he knows, one of the biggest problems we have, far from restoring the December cuts, is to ensure that the consequences of inflation do not undermine the position any further. My right hon. Friend was able to announce last week that an extra £40 million would be made available, which reflects the increase in the running costs so far this year, for hospital and community health services. In national terms, it is an increase of about 40 per cent. We read in the newspapers that this sum was considered by the British Medical Association at its conference in Hull to be "derisory". All I can say is that there are many other areas in the country which would consider £40 million a substantial injection. Of course it is not enough, but it is an attempt to show that, subject to the requirements of general economic policy, the Government are determined to make further additional allocations in the light of experience of price increases in such a way that the growth of expenditure in real terms will be maintained at its planned level of around 2 per cent. in the current financial year.
The growth would have been 3½ per cent. had it not been for the severe cuts in expenditure imposed by our predecessors last year. Had we taken no action, that growth rate would have been cut even further. Already money has been provided to meet extra costs arising in the health services which were until April this year the responsibility of local authorities. Details of those sums to be allocated to health authorities have not yet been finally settled and we are having discussions with regional health authorities about this.
This brings me to the other important point raised by my hon. Friend on the North Western Region and particularly the capital allocations. As my hon. Friend knows, a deputation from the North Western Regional Health Authority saw my right hon. Friend and myself on 24th June. The chairman of the authority referred to the "Handbook of Information" prepared by the regional health authority for the meeting with Members of Parliament and emphasised the points made in that document. He felt that the region was deprived as measured by cri-

teria bearing on the quality of life. Nobody who knows that region would deny that. He thought that in future the region needed greater allocations than would derive solely from population criteria to compensate for the past when its allocation of resources had been less than the national average. While he agreed that the service depended on people rather than buildings, a theme we have tried to emphasise over the last few difficult months, lie felt that staff could not be attracted to work in appalling conditions.
We said that we accepted that the region had not done as well in the past as had others. Nevertheless, between 1968–69 and 1972–73 the Manchester Regional Hospital Board's main capital allocations were slightly greater than the national average on a population basis. For 1974–75 the North-Western Region received for new work an allocation matching the national average, and it had been subsequently augmented for the Preston Hospital scheme. Its total allocation fell short of the national average because its commitments to contracts already let was less than the national average. It was also said that Manchester Regional Hospital Board had tended to underspend on capital to a greater extent than the national average, and that this might be due to its approach to the design and planning of major schemes. But it has this relic of a very large stock of old buildings, and I think that it has put a high priority on maintaining existing old buildings and not felt able to start as many new complete capital schemes as perhaps some other regions.
Since coming to office in March, we have never made any secret of the fact that we are not happy with the way that money is allocated to the regional health authorities. In the past a distribution predominantly population based has been gradually correcting this imbalance, but we want to accelerate the pace of change and give a higher priority to redressing inequalities of care and health standards throughout the country. We have made it clear that we are now actively involved in taking steps to change the existing basis for the allocations. But if we are to re-allocate expenditure and be selective in the way we spend money, we have got to carry the rest of the regions with us. As I have stressed from the Dispatch Box previously, any new system has to be


based on objective criteria, not on subjective criteria.
I think that the regional hospital authority accepted that it was possible to have assistance in 1974–75 with only smaller schemes such as health centres, and here the present Government have made substantial increases in the provision for health centres over that which we thought we would be able to make when we came to office. I think that the authority accepted that it would not be possible, on account of its size, to start now the Accrington scheme, which had been deferred from 1974–75.
As to next year, on which my hon. Friend has quite reasonably pressed me, I can only say to him that this must be a decision for the regional health authority. It is well aware of the feelings in Accrington. It has accepted the obligation and much of the need. A lot will depend on the resources that can be made available to the region and the relative priority that it gives to the various different schemes that apply in its area. I cannot pre-judge, therefore, decisions which it is likely to make in applications for the next year. But my hon. Friend has made a very strong case, both on the specific issue of the maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital and on the more general but none the less important and related issue of the capital allocations to his regional health authority.
The capital allocations to the regional health authority are decisions for central Government. At present I cannot say what will be the result of the studies, and it will take time to make the sort of substantial change which I think will be necessary. But of this my hon. Friend can be assured. The Government are determined to redress the inequalities and unevenness of standards throughout the health service. Of course we need more money. All aspects of the health service need more money. But that can be said of many other parts of our public life at present. What we can say is that when we have less money it is all the more important to channel those resources to the areas of greatest need. That will certainly be our objective over the next few years.
I hope, therefore, that it will not be long before my hon. Friend is welcoming a new decision to build the new unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital. Certainly, because of his persistence and efforts on behalf of his constituents, I believe that that day will be hastened by this debate. But I fear that I can give him no further promises than that. I hope that this will at least give his constituents the feeling that their concern is shared by Ministers and by his regional health authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.